Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Swinden Quarry-Grassington Rail Service

Gordon Prentice: What estimate he has made of the cost of reinstating the railway from Swinden quarry near Linton to Grassington.

Derek Twigg: We have made no estimate of the costs of reinstating the railway from Swinden quarry to Grassington, but the current north Yorkshire local transport plan refers to a study of this proposal that was made in 2002.

Gordon Prentice: It is disappointing that the Government have not made an estimate, because at the moment quarry traffic runs to within two miles of Grassington, which, as you know Mr. Speaker, is the capital of lower Wharfedale—deep in the Yorkshire dales. At a time when we are trying to get people out of their cars to enjoy the countryside, surely it makes economic sense, political sense and good social sense to reinstate that railway and get people to the beauties of the dales without their having to rely on their own transport.

Derek Twigg: I agree that it is beautiful part of the world. My hon. Friend is a great champion of the need to improve the local railway and I know that he has raised many issues about it. However, the study did not show a positive cost-benefit ratio and therefore the business case has not been made. As he knows, we are investing a record amount in the railway. I am only sorry that I cannot be helpful to him today.

David Curry: The concern of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) for my constituency is touching from a neighbour and I am grateful to him. Will the Minister note that, over the last few weeks, there have been four reports on the condition of the countryside, all of which highlight the problems of rural transport? If any resources were to become available for extending passenger rail links, will he bear in mind that getting ordinary people who do not have the means of transport to work and enabling them to carry out their normal daily tasks is more important than transporting tourists to the Yorkshire dales?

Derek Twigg: Rural railways and local railways are important, which is why we have developed the community rail partnership and why we are seeing investment in community rail. At the same time, there have to be enough passengers to justify the service. If there is a case for extending rail links in the future, that will have to be made by the local authority, working with Network Rail. We are keen on developing community rail, which is why the partnership has developed well.

Transport Innovation Fund

Kerry McCarthy: What role the transport innovation fund will play in tackling road congestion through demand management.

Douglas Alexander: Up to £200 million a year of the transport innovation fund has been made available to support local packages of measures to address congestion. Those include demand management measures, such as road pricing, as well as investment in public transport to ensure that our towns and cities support the long- term economic success of the UK.

Kerry McCarthy: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that Bristol is one of the local authorities that is bidding for funds from the transport innovation fund to run a road pricing pilot. What support will the local authority be given from the Department for Transport in that bid?

Douglas Alexander: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We have already given the greater Bristol area £1.5 million of so-called pump-priming money to support the development of a potential bid for the transport innovation fund. The four unitary authorities in the area are working together to investigate the potential for using demand management and road pricing to address the problems of local congestion. I would expect to receive the first scheme proposals next year, with pricing pilots possibly going live in four to five years.

John Leech: Will the Secretary of State say whether he expects any bids for money from the transport innovation fund to be successful if they do not include an element of congestion charging or road-user pricing?

Douglas Alexander: Those issues are covered in the guidance notes. We have made no secret of the fact that we think that there is considerable potential to learn useful lessons from the pilots, but that is one element of the opportunities that are available to local authorities, given that there have to be local solutions that work in local areas.

Richard Burden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's inclusion of the west midlands conurbation area in the feasibility study to bid for money from the transport innovation fund. What consideration has he given—perhaps with his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry—to how initiatives such as the transport innovation fund can be used to maximise the technological, industrial and employment potential of different kinds of traffic management schemes, as well as reducing road congestion?

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the west midlands, which is one of the seven areas that are benefiting from the pump-priming money, as I described it. The broader relationship between transport and economic growth will be addressed by the Eddington study, which was commissioned jointly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my predecessor. The study should come to us later this year and will address exactly that type of relationship.

Chris Grayling: First, I welcome the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box for the first time in his new job and congratulate him on his promotion to the Cabinet. I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on her promotion. It is a shame that they come to the Dispatch Box on a day when the Government have cut back the time that is available for Transport questions, which demonstrates what a low priority transport is for this Government. In the Secretary of State's first speech, he confirmed plans for a national road pricing scheme. He has made reference again today to the concept of pilots by 2010 in areas such as the west midlands and Bristol. Does he yet have an idea of what form the pilot will take? In particular, will it involve only vehicles registered in the area covered by the pilot, will it be fiscally neutral for those involved and what technology will it use?

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, in relation both to me and to my ministerial colleague. I said in the speech that I wanted to make a personal priority of taking forward the debate on a national road pricing scheme. We need such a debate, partly because there are genuine questions in the minds of motorists and other members of the public that need to be addressed. We would aim for a national consensus, and I hope that we can secure it over the months ahead, or at least begin to unbundle some of the questions that have been directed at me today. I make no secret of the fact that genuine technological questions need to be addressed. I hope that the local pilots will help us to answer other questions, which is why I think that it is sensible to have a graduated response that shows the benefits of road pricing in areas in which that can be seen to be an effective solution to congestion.

Chris Grayling: I was interested to note that the Secretary of State was not able to give specific answers to my questions. I have talked to people in the west midlands and Greater Manchester who are involved in the potential pilots and they have no idea of what is going on, what the technology involved will be, or what the pilots will look like. When will they get some information about what they should expect?

Douglas Alexander: Business cases are being worked up and it is important that those responsible for the areas themselves work out a solution that works for them. I have examined the matter quite carefully in recent weeks. The hon. Gentleman puts his points to me, but I have no idea whatsoever about his position on the questions that have been asked. We will bring forward detailed proposals from the seven areas, and that will be the basis on which we can examine the range of alternatives that, in turn, will inform the thinking that we develop on national road pricing.

Graham Stringer: My right hon. Friend's predecessor assured the House on many occasions that road charging would not be a condition for future funding of the tram system in Manchester, yet we appear to be entering into a competition for transport innovation funds between Manchester and Birmingham that will almost certainly require road charging. Does my right hon. Friend agree that rather than getting into such a destructive competition, it would be much more sensible to use the TIF money to lever in private sector funds, or as a basis for prudential borrowing, so that Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Bristol—all the cities—can have the tram systems that they require?

Douglas Alexander: I pay tribute to the leadership role that my hon. Friend has played in Manchester over a number of years, both in local government and now here in the Commons. Within days of my appointment as Secretary of State, I travelled to Manchester and reiterated the commitment that my predecessor had given on the funds available for the Manchester Metrolink. Discussions continue with the Manchester authorities and I hope that we can bring them to a conclusion relatively quickly. I understand that in addition to those discussions, consideration is being given in Manchester to the applicability of TIF funding in the future. However, in the weeks ahead, I will not in any way resile from the commitment given by my predecessor to Manchester.

Rural/Community Railway Lines

Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on his policy on the future of rural and community railway lines.

Derek Twigg: The Government recognise the importance of local railway lines to the communities they serve and seek to support their development, primarily through the implementation of the community rail development strategy.

Ann Winterton: When will the Government publish their response to the recent consultation on the future of rural and community railway lines? Does the Minister accept that it is vital that there are improved connections between the rural lines which survive the forthcoming cuts and the national network, which would bring increased revenue to offset public subsidy? Would that not be a simple example of an integrated transport policy, which was much heralded nine years ago by the Deputy Prime Minister, although it subsequently appears to have sunk without trace?

Derek Twigg: I do not accept that. We launched three franchises only last week: new cross country, west midlands and east midlands. They will lead to a 3 to 5 per cent. increase in services. The east and west midlands franchises will be asked to work with and develop community rail. We are thus seeing an improvement to services and an increase in their number as a result of what the Government are doing. Part of the west midlands franchise will be a new hourly service between Birmingham and Manchester that will serve Congleton, which is in the hon. Lady's constituency.

David Taylor: Will the Minister give an indication of the Government's thinking on the National Forest line, a passenger service that would be restored to the Leicester to Burton section of the rail network? It seems to tick all the boxes that are necessary, but in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), he talked about a business case. This line has one that is strong environmentally, economically, socially and, dare I say, running through four marginal Labour seats, politically?

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, especially his last comment. On business cases, there is a great demand for services and improvements to stations and lines. Although a record amount of money is going to the railway and significant improvements have been made, we have to consider such cases. In the first instance, it is up to the local authority, as the promoter, working with Network Rail to produce a business case. However, my hon. Friend will be aware, that as I just mentioned, last week we published the east midlands and cross-country franchise consultation documents, which set out the minimum service required. We want views from a range of stakeholders, and I am sure that we will hear from him, about what people want. We will consider responses carefully before we make final decisions about the franchise.

Boris Johnson: Will the Minister repeat the assurances of earlier occupants of his post that neither the Henley-Twyford line nor any other such line will be converted to a community railway without the express support of the community concerned, even though the line runs through solid Conservative territory?

Derek Twigg: Community rail development obviously has to have the support of the community; otherwise, it does not stack up and make sense. If there is no community support for a line to be designated as a community line, it will not happen. The important point to make is that the more involvement there is, whether it is through the more formal process of community development or from the local community, local business and people generally within particular areas covered by a railway station and service, the better it is. If the line is supported and more people use it, its viability is increased and it makes good business sense. There are, however lots of opportunities without necessarily going down the community rail development route. That said, it is an excellent scheme, but if it is not supported, it will not happen.

Stephen Hammond: In the Minister's answers to my hon. Friends, he reiterated the Government's rhetoric that rural, community and light rail are important to them. However, if they really believed their own rhetoric, they would not be closing rural railway lines but increasing their usage, and they would have spent more than 0.3 per cent. of the Department for Transport's budget on light rail. The consultation that is now happening is leading to the closure of rural, smaller and community rail links. They are surely on the way to ditching another policy. That means another policy will be ditched, another policy will be U-turned, and there will be more problems for the travelling public.

Derek Twigg: That is a bit rich coming from the Conservatives, who gave us botched privatisation, Railtrack, and years and years of underinvestment in the railway. We have seen record investment in the railway under this Government. I keep asking, as I did earlier, which line we have plans to close. Can the hon. Gentleman let us know?
	We have 2,500 stations, and I have opened two or three new ones in the past 12 months; for example, Liverpool Parkway is opening and the east midlands line is being developed. There has been a growth in services as part of the franchises for east midlands, west midlands and Virgin. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's arguments do not stack up.

Mottram-Tintwistle Bypass

Michael Clapham: How many submissions have been received by the Highways Agency in connection with the proposed Mottram-Tintwistle bypass; and what proportion of these submissions objected to the proposal.

Stephen Ladyman: The draft orders for the scheme were published on 31 January 2006 and a 13-week period ending on 5 May 2006 was provided to allow affected parties and other members of the public to provide their comments. By the end of this period the Highways Agency had received 2,691 pieces of correspondence concerning the proposals. Some 1,446 objections, 997 support letters, 28 representations and another 220 miscellaneous pieces of correspondence, which included queries, freedom of information requests and other questions were received.

Michael Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. May I tell him why I could not agree to the proposals? In my constituency, the scheme will displace the problems that have been experienced in Tintwistle. For example, on the A628, over Salters bridge, the traffic in 2010 will increase by 56 per cent. and in 2025 by 94 per cent. Those are already busy roads. It is a similar story through Penistone, Thurlstone and Millhouse Green. On the A616 on the other side of my constituency, there will also be marked increases in traffic through Bolsterstone, Midhopestones and Langsett. Does he agree that there need to be robust restraining measures to ensure that the lorries—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister knows that the hon. Gentleman is displeased with his proposal.

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing his concerns to my attention. I am happy to hold a meeting with him so that he can discuss them in detail. However, he is entirely right that there are issues that need to be addressed, including possible restraint measures and restrictions on heavy goods vehicle access to the road if it goes ahead. The Highways Agency has already considered such proposals, and I am happy to pass on any suggestions that he wishes to draw to my attention.

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend will be aware that the proposals affect my part of south Yorkshire, too, including the villages of Langsett, Midhopestones and Bolsterstone. I am therefore pleased that he has made a commitment to a meeting, and I hope that he will invite all the MPs in south Yorkshire who are affected.

Stephen Ladyman: I am certainly happy to meet my hon. Friend, too, to hear her objections. I do not know whether she wishes me to invite to that meeting Government Members who support the proposals strongly, or whether we should have a separate meeting to discuss the issues.

Rail Services

Jim Devine: What steps his Department has taken to improve the punctuality and reliability of rail services since 1997.

Andrew Love: What steps his Department has taken to improve the punctuality and reliability of commuter rail services.

Douglas Alexander: The rail network has undergone major improvements in recent years. Punctuality on the network is now 86.7 per cent.—the highest level since May 2000. Following the 2004 White Paper, Network Rail is now accountable for performance and for co-ordinating rail industry planning and operational management. My Department holds regular meetings with Network Rail and industry representatives to discuss further performance improvements.

Jim Devine: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in congratulating the Labour-led Scottish Executive on improving punctuality and reliability? Only two weeks ago, they announced that they would extend the rail line from Bathgate to Airdrie, ensuring that my constituents have three direct rail routes to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Douglas Alexander: It is obviously the case that punctuality and reliability are challenges in every part of the United Kingdom, but I join my hon. Friend in those congratulations.

Andrew Love: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the continuing problems with One railway in my north London constituency? In February, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), wrote to me about the difficulties that had occurred as a result of industrial action on the railways. Since then, very little has improved. Four days ago, my constituent, Ray Knight, received a letter from the Advertising Standards Authority, in which it said that it was instructing One
	"to change their advertising to remove the claim regarding a 30 minute frequency where it does not apply".
	Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the Government will undertake a robust review of the franchise agreement to ensure the reliability of rail services in my constituency?

Douglas Alexander: In the first instance, it is for Network Rail, working closely with One management, to try to secure the performance improvements that we all want. There has been a decline in performance in the past year, albeit from a higher base than elsewhere in the country. I understand that 87 per cent. of One services run on time, against a national average of 86.8 per cent. One management has recently been restructured, and performance has shown signs of improvement, but I will ensure that the point made by my hon. Friend's constituent is passed on directly to Network Rail and, indeed, One management.

Damian Green: Will the Secretary of State consider the future of commuter services in Kent, particularly when the high speed channel tunnel rail link is finished, which will provide many welcome benefits? Can he guarantee that that will not be used as an excuse to cut services, especially to smaller rural stations in my constituency and elsewhere in Kent?

Douglas Alexander: Passenger numbers on the railways have been increasing significantly in recent years. We now have a billion-passenger railway. On the other hand, as my predecessor once remarked, we are not in the business of carting fresh air around the countryside. It is inherent in a confident growing number of passengers that we face challenging decisions at times. We therefore need to consider how we can secure value for money from the network, but that is clearly in the context of continuing to grow the railways.

Michael Fallon: How will punctuality and reliability be improved by the Secretary of State's extraordinary proposal to extend the Mayor of London's power to set fares and control service levels to stations such as Sevenoaks, outside the London boundary, where my constituents cannot vote for the Mayor of London and certainly would not do so if they could?

Douglas Alexander: My understanding is that the services are predominantly within London, but that matter is being consulted upon.

Fiona Mactaggart: May I welcome the Minister to his new role? As someone who is quite good at spotting odd cover-ups, let me tell him that all Thames valley MPs of all parties are concerned about the punctuality and efficiency of the commuter service that leads into the Thames valley. The service between Slough and Paddington has become less frequent, and because of the reduction in frequency, it might appear more punctual and more effective. Unless we have an effective rail commuter service into the Thames valley, which is the engine of Britain's economy, we risk losing much inward investment into the UK.

Douglas Alexander: We continue to invest record amounts in the British railways, but in the context of those rising passenger numbers, it is necessary at times to introduce changes to the schedules that make sense in the context of the differing demands in different parts of the country. However, the improvements that we have seen over recent years are the result not only of more sensible timetabling changes, but of the better integration of working relationships between the train operating companies and Network Rail.

Vincent Cable: In order to improve the punctuality and reliability of congested peak-hour commuter services, what action is the right hon. Gentleman taking to replace the present chaotic system of rail fares among the rail companies with consistent and generous incentives for off-peak use?

Douglas Alexander: A balance must be struck, given that there are essentially two sources of funding to the railway: there are funds provided by the taxpayer and there are funds provided by the fare payer. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which was previously raised by the Transport Committee, about the present complexity of some of those fares. We are deliberating about our response to that Select Committee report.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State will be aware that some train companies are almost as creative about their timetabling as they are about their accounts. Will he please look carefully at some mainline services, where the airline habit of adding in minutes to schedules is being used in order to improve the running of trains? The Secretary of State is doing a good job. He has given the train companies the money. Let us make sure we get value for it.

Douglas Alexander: I concur with my hon. Friend's final point about securing value for the investment that has been made. As I say, it is inevitable that there will periodically be timetable changes. It is important that those changes are made not simply to slacken the performance, but to reflect the changing demands over time on the network.

Robert Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the things he could do to improve the punctuality and reliability of commuter services is to unplug the national bottleneck that exists at Reading station? Will he finally announce that the funds will be made available?

Douglas Alexander: Discussions are continuing on that. I am aware that in a previous answer to, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), my predecessor explained that he had seen the station at Reading, was aware of the difficulties and recognised the challenges that are faced.

Road Accidents

Ann McKechin: What progress has been made in reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured in road accidents since 1997.

Stephen Ladyman: Our provisional statistics for 2005 indicate that 32,150 people were killed or seriously injured in accidents reported to the police in Great Britain, which is 33 per cent. less than the baseline average between 1994 and 1998 and 31 per cent. less than the figure in 1997.

Ann McKechin: I thank my hon. Friend for his response and welcome the reduction in the number of deaths and injuries. However, far too many people still suffer death and injury as a result of drink-driving. Does he agree that now is the time to consider reducing the alcohol limit from 80 mg to 50 mg, which would bring us in line with other European countries?

Stephen Ladyman: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do more to reduce drink-driving. She will have seen the campaign launched by right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about drinking during the summer months and the World cup, and other extensive efforts in education are continuing. However, we are still not enforcing the 80 mg limit as strictly as I would like, and we should put our resources into that before we reduce the level to 50 mg. When we have achieved strict enforcement at 80 mg, perhaps we can re-examine the matter.

Charles Hendry: When will the Minister publish the Department's new guidelines on speed limits in villages? He will be aware that the parish councils and highways authorities believe that the speed limit should be reduced in many villages, but until his Department produces the guidelines, they cannot reduce speed limits for fear that they will have to reverse their decision when the guidelines are issued.

Stephen Ladyman: We will publish the guidance shortly. Over the next year or two, it is important that all highways authorities use the guidance to review all the speed limits on our roads. Speed limits should be set appropriately—they can be reduced for safety purposes or, where engineering or other improvements have happened on a stretch of road, they can be increased. That is an important part of the deal that we need to strike with motorists, and we must be seen to set speed limits fairly and in accordance with objective criteria.

Mark Lazarowicz: I was a bit disappointed by the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin). The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has recently indicated its support for a reduction in the alcohol limit, and there is a growing body of opinion within the road safety community in favour of that. Will the Minister think again and consider the advantages of reducing the limit in terms of saving lives and reducing injuries on the roads?

Stephen Ladyman: I hear what my hon. Friend has said and acknowledge his interest in the matter. I have spoken to the Association of Chief Police Officers in England, which has expressed the view that it would like to see the level come down to 50 mg at some point. However, there is no point in discussing harmonisation with the level in Europe, because, although most states in Europe specify lower levels of alcohol in their law, they do not enforce at those levels. In this country, we are at least enforcing hard at 80 mg. I have pointed out to ACPO that the police need to put resources into making sure that nobody breaks the 80 mg limit. When we are confident that we are achieving success at that level, it will be time to think about further reducing the level.

Paul Rowen: May I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State and the Minister on their appointments? Does the Minister agree that a major problem is the courts' interpretation and use of laws passed in this House? In my constituency, for example, there is a young man with three convictions: first, he left a boy of five paralysed and was given a two-month driving ban; secondly, he left a 67-year-old woman for dead; thirdly, he stole a car and crashed into a stationary car, which led to a four-month suspended sentence. Working with other Departments, what can the Minister do to ensure that the courts enforce the laws that we pass?

Stephen Ladyman: We must work with the courts, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and others on reviewing the sentencing guidelines. The courts need to understand that it is the wish of this House that serious punishments should be issued for such offences. People around the country are fed up with seeing people avoid long sentences, and being given a tap on the wrist for some of the most serious offences that we can envisage. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will support us in our approach.

DVLA

Si�n James: What recent discussions he has had with trade unions on employment issues in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

Stephen Ladyman: The DVLA has ongoing and regular discussions with the trade unions on all issues affecting the agency and its staff, in line with its partnership agreement. The most recent meeting took place between the chief executive and Public and Commercial Services Union officers at national and local level on 1 June, when they were brought up to date with the agency's resourcing plans to March 2008.

Si�n James: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and for the opportunity to meet him to discuss this matter. He is aware that several of my constituents have written to me to say that they do not wish their jobs to be outsourced to a private company, but want to remain within the DVLA doing the job that they are doing very well. Will he ensure that when he next meets the director of the DVLA he will make those representations to him on my behalf and that of the union?

Stephen Ladyman: First, it is important that I stress that no decisions have been made as yet. It is essential that we review these matters from time to time. All the agencies make sure that they are getting the most cost-effective use of the funds and resources that they are given. I am meeting the chief executive tomorrow, and I will certainly ensure that the views expressed by my hon. Friend are made known to him.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Is the Minister aware that UK British citizens living in Northern Ireland continue to experience problems because their driving licences are not issued by the DVLA in Great Britain, which means that they are being discriminated against as regards penalty points, the recognition of their driving licences and the registration of their vehicles? Will he work with his colleague in Northern Ireland to end that anomaly?

Stephen Ladyman: I am aware of the anomaly, and I am talking to my colleagues in Northern Ireland about it. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to provide me with further evidence of the problems facing his constituents, I shall be grateful to receive it.

Rail Infrastructure

Julie Morgan: What plans he has to improve the condition of railway banks and stations.

Gillian Merron: Responsibility for the condition of railway embankments is an operational matter for Network Rail. Responsibility for the condition of stations is shared between Network Rail and the train operating companies. In addition, franchise agreements require the train operators to keep their stations in a clean condition.

Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the amount of fly-tipping and dumping of rubbish taking place on railway banks and land around stations in Cardiff, particularly next to Lisvane station in my constituency, where sewage pipes, fallen lamp-posts, television sets and a whole load of cans are dumped? Things are similar at Llandaff North station.

Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend raises important local matters, which all hon. Members know are of direct concern to her and her constituents. Through my discussions with her, I am aware of the instances that she mentions. It may be helpful to say that the land is owned by Network Rail and leased to Arriva Trains Wales, which is responsible for removing the litter and fly-tipped material. I know of my hon. Friend's considerable efforts on behalf of her constituents, and I will be pleased to assist her further by raising the matter with Arriva Trains Wales.

Robert Goodwill: Is the Minister aware that pesticide run-off, which is often a big problem on the rail network and with highways weed control, is often blamed on farmers? Will she work with Network Rail to try to minimise that problem as, despite the fact that the problem is not caused by farmers, it may result in some important pesticides being limited for agricultural use?

Gillian Merron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It would be helpful to me, in pursuing the matter, if he gave me some specific examples. As he says, bank maintenance is a matter for Network Rail, which is more than willing to arrange meetings with any Members of Parliament who have particular concerns. I would be happy to facilitate that for him.

James McGovern: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the condition of a city's railway station plays an incredibly important role, as it provides the first impression, and the last memory, for many visitors. Will she therefore join me in calling on the relevant authorities to support my campaign to upgrade Dundee's Tay Bridge station, which has lain in a neglected state for many years now?

Gillian Merron: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is also Secretary of State for Scotland, so clearly he is awareas I amof the importance of the campaign. From my experience, I share the view that the condition of stations is important both for visitors' perceptions and for our constituents who use the stations as residents.

Rail Services

John Pugh: What funds the Department has made available for extending the rail network over the next three years.

Derek Twigg: The then Secretary of State's statement to the House on 10 February 2005 set out the Government's spending plans for rail for 2004-05 to 2008-09. In that period, the Government are to spend more than 23 billion on Britain's railways, to make up for years of underinvestment. That is an average of around 88 million a week.

John Pugh: The Under-Secretary will acknowledge that there are many excellent schemes that can increase rail capacity at limited cost, such as Burscough curves near my constituency and the Halton curve near his. However, he will also acknowledge that there is no formal mechanism for opening lines, although there is a clear formal mechanism for closing them. What can we do about that?

Derek Twigg: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I visited Burscough a few months ago to open the new station there. I looked at the area and I appreciate that he has been promoting it, as has the local Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper). As he points out, there is a procedure, which involves going though a sponsoring body such as a local authority and a rail operator. Merseyrail has examined the matter. Lancashire county council previously considered it but decided that the business case did not stack up. It had aspirations for the Blackburn-Preston-Bolton-Manchester corridor. Merseyrail has been working on the issue, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has been liaising with it. It is a matter for Merseyrail to take forward with the relevant local authorities.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

The Minister of State was asked

Boundary Reform

Andrew Robathan: If she will consider the merits of boundary reform to equalise voter numbers in each constituency.

Bridget Prentice: The independent parliamentary boundary commissions review parliamentary boundaries every eight to 12 years. Although the electoral quota is important, it is necessary to take other factors into account, such as geographical and community issues. The boundary commissions consider all those factors when conducting their reviews.

Andrew Robathan: How can it be right for, for example, Birmingham, Yardley to have an electorate of fewer than 51,000, when in the same old county of Warwickshire, Rugby and Kenilworth has an electorate of more than 83,000? The Boundary Commission for England recommends an average of 70,000 electors per constituency and is trundling through its changes. However, the Boundary Commission for Wales will still have only 56,000 electors per constituency. Will the Government review the terms of reference for all the boundary commissions of the United Kingdom to ensure that the priority is equalisation of voters, so that each elector's vote has the same value? I suggest a standard of 80,000 electors per constituency. That would also reduce the number of politicians, which would be popular with the British people.

Bridget Prentice: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is volunteering to stand downbut that might be welcome in several places.
	The boundary commissions take into account not only numbers but geography and community issues. There have been historic arrangements for Wales to compensate for its smaller size. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that Welsh constituencies should be the same size as English ones, he might just as logically say that the Welsh Assembly should have the same powers and authority as the Scottish Parliament.

Clive Betts: Does my hon. Friend accept that getting equality between numbers of electors takes us only part of the way to our destination? The objective should be equality between numbers of residents, and that means getting the percentage of residents who register to vote up to nearer 100 per cent. If we do not achieve that, young people, people in rented accommodation and others are less likely to register to vote. Some constituencies, especially those in inner-city areas, have far more residents than those in the leafy suburbs.

Bridget Prentice: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which we shall doubtless debate later today when we consider the Electoral Administration Bill, which deals with registration. I take his point seriously. The number of people who live in inner cities but are not registered and therefore not counted by the boundary commissions makes a considerable difference. He makes a good point about ensuring that everyone is counted and registered, so that we properly reflect the communities that we are supposed to represent.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister accept that the criteria given to the Boundary Commission by the House need to change? The reason why constituencies are so hopelessly out of kilter in numbers of electors is that the commission is always working on out-of-date statistics. It is allowed to look backwards but not forwards, and this causes huge anomalies that could easily be avoided. Will the Minister give me an undertaking that this matter will be looked at?

Bridget Prentice: I think that I can give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking. He has made a valid point, and I shall take it on board and discuss it with the boundary commissions in due course.

Simon Hughes: Following the tone of earlier questions, may I push the Minister to consult her colleagues to see whether she can come up with a Government policy to ensure that the same number of adults are entitled to vote in every constituency across the United Kingdom for this Parliament? There can be no justification these days for a differential figure in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England, if each vote is to be of equal value. Of course, the number of residents entitled to vote is just as good a test as the number who actually end up getting their names on the register.

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Hon. Members have in the past raised the issue of the Isle of Wight, a constituency with a very large number of electors. If we did not take geographical issues into account, the Isle of Wight would have to be considered with at least one other part of the south of England; it would be very difficult to make it into two or more constituencies. Nevertheless, I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said, and in my discussions with the Boundary Commission, I shall look at all aspects of ensuring that every constituency represents the people who live in it as well as possible.

Oliver Heald: But does the Minister not accept that there is a bit of party politics going on here? She will know that, after last month's local elections, Sir Michael Lyonsa former Labour councillor and an adviser to the Governmentsaid that council boundaries should now be politically redrawn to make council elections more closely competitive. Of course, we know what happened in those local elections. Is the Minister intending to follow this principle for parliamentary elections? Is it not the case that if Labour cannot win elections, its first instinct is to gerrymander the boundaries involved?

Bridget Prentice: Dear, oh dear. I really think that the hon. Gentleman ought to reflect on what he has just said. The Labour party has won the last three general elections, I am very pleased to say [ Interruption.] The Boundary Commission is an independent, non-party-political organisation [ Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Minister answer.

Bridget Prentice: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	I would just remind the hon. Gentleman that the Boundary Commission, which recommends changes to the boundaries, is a neutral, non-party-political organisation. This is not done on a party basis. It is done in a logical, neutral way, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on what he has said and consider whether the changes that the Boundary Commission has made over the years have also benefited his party from time to time.

Limitations of Actions

Hugh Bayley: When the Government plan to implement the recommendations in the Law Commission's 2001 report on limitations of actions.

Vera Baird: Those are recommendations from the Law Commission's report that the limitation periodthe time within which one person may bring a civil action against anotherought to be made more flexible. The Government announced their acceptance in principle of the recommendations in 2002, subject to further consideration of some aspects of the Law Commission's report. That work is now well advanced and it should end shortly. We will then seek a legislative opportunity to reform the law.

Hugh Bayley: Four years is a long time to wait. My constituent, Kevin Young, was repeatedly sexually abused by a prison officer while he was in a youth offender institution 29 years ago. He wants the terms of the Limitation Act 1980 changed to make it easier for people like him to claim compensation. In a letter to me in March, Baroness Ashton said that it might be possible to use the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, if it is passed by Parliament, to change the law more quickly by statutory instrument. Will the Government will look into that?

Vera Baird: Yes. It is correct to say that there is a fast-track provision in that Bill to introduce non-contentious recommendations by the Law Commission by statutory instrument, and that could be used to fast-track these proposals. I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend and his constituent. People who suffered sex abuse when they were children and did not appreciate its impact until much later often find themselves outside the limitation period, and therefore suffer injustice. We will certainly look at using that Bill to bring such a proposal forward; otherwise we will seek an early legislative opportunity.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister referred to the four years since the Government basically accepted the Law Commission's recommendation. Would it help to produce parliamentary encouragement for the Government if a list of all the outstanding Law Commission recommendations was published each year, outlining what progress is being made and what blockages there are to fulfilling those steps towards greater justice?

Vera Baird: I am sure that from time to time we do indicate the progress that is being made on Law Commission proposals, and of course the hon. Gentleman can, and will, ask questions of the Department about precisely that. The recommendations went far wider than the concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), as they also related to matters such as time limits on squatters' rights, corruption, insolvency applications and compulsory purchase orders. A great deal of work has had to be done across a number of Departments, which explains the delay. My noble Friend Baroness Ashton, whose portfolio this relates to, and the Lord Chancellor are particularly keen to get on with implementing this change.

Courts Service

David Burrowes: What assessment she has made of the likely impact of changes in the Courts Service's budget on the Government's plans for the court system.

Harriet Harman: The courts are working to deliver the Government's plans for the court system, particularly improving public safety and increasing public confidence through simpler, speedier justice. Like all public services, the courts are facing tight spending limits this year.

David Burrowes: I declare a relevant interest as a solicitor. What is the hope for improved administration of justice in Enfield magistrates court when the north-west London region courts were told last month that, following the Lord Chancellor's overestimate of legal aid savings, they need to find 2 million-worth of savings this financial year? Is that not good news for fine defaulters and compensation defaulters, and bad news for court users and victims?

Harriet Harman: We have to be sure that the Department as a whole lives within its financial spending limits, but within that we can improve the services that we provide. I believe that it is possible to meet both those aims.

Keith Vaz: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had an opportunity to see the evidence of Sir Mark Potter, the president of the family division, to the Constitutional Affairs Committee? He says that any changes in the budget will dramatically affect his ability to bring down the current casework delay in the family division. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is very keen on modernising the Courts Service and that she has great ambitions to do so, but a cut in the budget that is not agreed with the judiciary will have serious implications for the delays that are still inherent in our family justice system.

Harriet Harman: We are all concerned that there should be no unnecessary delay in court processes, especially where children are involved. I have discussed the delays with the president of the family division and his fellow judges. One of our aims is to ensure that as many cases as possible do not come to court at all, but can be agreed outside it, as well as ensuring that cases that are brought to court are dealt with more swiftly.

Jonathan Djanogly: We understand that the 80 million cut in the court budget this year could lead to a reduction of services and the loss of up to 1,300 jobs. Last week, the Minister of State revealed to me that the courts failed to collect some 282 million-worth of fines. Does not that debacle prove once again the Government's inability to run public services, and the inability of Constitutional Affairs Ministers to run their own Department?

Harriet Harman: No, it does not. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we inherited a position in which nearly half the fines imposed by the courts were not collected, a great deal of work has been done between the police and the courts across the country, and the collection rate has been increased to more than 80 per cent. That money goes to the Treasury, which I am sure is extremely pleased to receive it. The finances of the Courts Service are not what the hon. Gentleman said that they were. In fact, the courts did not spend the full amount that they thought that they would in the previous year. Perhaps, to help hon. Members to understand the exact position, I will place in the Library a copy of the permanent secretary's letter to all court staff. That would enable hon. Members to see the financial situation, which is challenging, but not of the dimensions that the hon. Gentleman implied.

Sally Keeble: Further to the Government's plans for the court system, will my right hon. and learned Friend say what plans she has for the family courts, especially in relation to ending their ability to send people to prisonfor example, for contempt of court for breach of a contact orderwithout having a public hearing?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, which she has put to me in a written question, so I know what the answer is. Last year something like 200 people were sent to prison by the family courts, which happens in complete privacy and secrecy. The idea that people are sent to prison without any reports of the proceedings makes even more important the work that we are undertaking with the family courts, and with the important intervention of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, to open them up so that they act in the public interest while maintaining personal privacy.

Colchester Courthouse

Bob Russell: If she will make a statement on progress on the planned new courthouse at Colchester.

Harriet Harman: The Courts Service has now purchased a site in Colchester for the new courthouse. The next step is to appoint a firm to construct the building. [Hon. Members: Hooray!] Before hon. Members cheer, I must tell them that that is subject to funding discussions with Her Majesty's Treasury.

Bob Russell: The time taken between the decision to build a new courthouse in Colchester and the present day is longer than the duration of the second world war. Does the Minister regard that as a success or a failure, with regard to the concept of the private finance initiative?

Harriet Harman: Obviously, we would have liked the hon. Gentleman's local courthouse to have been renewed earlier. When he last made the comparison between the duration of the second world war and the time taken to build the new Colchester courthouse, the land had not yet been purchased. On that basis, at least, we are making progress. We will let him know when the construction company has been appointed, and I am sure that he will ask a question about that.

Si�n James: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's constituency is much too far from the area under discussion for me to call her.

Dr. David Kelly

Norman Baker: If she will make a statement on the coroner's inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Harriet Harman: The Oxfordshire coroner opened and adjourned the inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly on 17 July 2003. He resumed the inquest on 14 August 2003 to admit post-mortem evidence from the Home Office pathologist and a toxicology report. He then adjourned the inquest as directed by the Lord Chancellor pending Lord Hutton's public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. Kelly. Having read the Hutton report, the coroner announced at an open hearing on 16 March 2004 that there was no exceptional reason to resume the inquest.

Norman Baker: The Minister will be aware that under the 1984 coroner's rules, as amended in 2002, where an inquest has been adjourned for any reason, an interim certificate of death shall be issued, which accepts that the death has occurred without giving the precise reasons for the death. Why, then, did the Oxfordshire coroner, on 18 Augustbarely a week after Lord Hutton began taking evidenceissue a full death certificate giving reasons for the death? What was the point of the Hutton inquiry if the death certificate already gave the reasons?

Harriet Harman: The Hutton report obviously ranged much more widely, which is one of the reasons why a further inquest by the Oxfordshire coroner was not necessary.

Cohabiting Couples

Mary Creagh: What plans the Government have to reform the law relating to the rights of cohabiting couples.

Vera Baird: The current state of play is that the Law Commission published a consultation paper about cohabitation on 31 May. That consultation paper poses questions on how the law in this area might be reformed, and we look forward to the outcome of the consultation and will consider any recommendations made. We expect the final report in summer 2007.

Mary Creagh: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for her reply and congratulate her on her new position. Does she agree that the principle of equal rights for cohabiting couples is based on the principle of fairness? I have received an anonymous letter from a woman who has lived with a man for 17 years and has borne five of his children, but who now finds herself unable to leave him as he refuses to give her a share in the family home, which is in his name. She describes her position as that of a concubine. What steps is the Department taking to make people aware that there is no such thing as a common-law marriage, and that they need to protect their rights if they are embarking on cohabitation?

Vera Baird: The Law Commission produced its paper at the request of the Lord Chancellor because of concern about the fact that there are now 2 million cohabiting couples in England and Wales and about 1.25 million children dependent on them. We must think about reducing the potential financial hardship suffered by cohabitants when there is a break-up.
	Apparently, 56 per cent. of people who responded to a survey thought that there was such a thing as common-law marriage, and that cohabitants' rights to property and finance were very similar to those of married people. That is not correct. We have engaged two charitable not-for-profit groups to try to make people aware of the limitations on the legal status of people who cohabit, but the important point is that the Law Commission, at our request, is considering responsiblyas is essential when so many individuals, including children, are involvedwhether there should be some sort of safety net in the event of a break-up.

John Bercow: I welcome the Law Commission's consultation paper. As a co-sponsor of the early-day motion on this subject tabled by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), may I implore the hon. and learned Ladywhom I welcome to her responsibilitiesto recognise the powerful case for a change in the law? Overwhelmingly, this is not about the distribution of largesse or about providing a rival to marriage, but about fairness, and, in many cases, about rescuing people from the destitution to which they would otherwise be consigned.

Vera Baird: I entirely recognise that. Let me make what may be a partisan point, and say that it is women, usually, who are left high and dry after cohabitation, perhaps having dreamt that they did have some property rights, and they may indeed be thrown into destitution. It is important for us to examine the whole subject with a great deal of care. It involves sensitivities on numerous fronts, which is why it was appropriate for us to ask the Law Commission to consider it. We look forward to the results of the commission's consultation, which will doubtless be followed by plenty of debate.

Deepcut Review

Adam Ingram: On 29 March I announced to the House the publication of the Government-commissioned Deepcut review, undertaken independently by Nicholas Blake QC. It looked into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four young soldiers who were training at Princess Royal barracks, Deepcut, between 1995 and 2002. I gave the House an assurance that I was determined to deal with the issues raised by Mr. Blake, and undertook to ensure that everything possible would be done to prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future. I said that we would look at every one of Mr. Blake's 34 recommendations to see how they should best be implemented to address the weaknesses that had been identified as quickly and effectively as possible.
	Today I am publishing the Government's response to the Deepcut review. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I understand that the publication of our response will inevitably evoke sad memories for the families of the soldiers who died at Deepcut. I hope that they will find some comfort in our response to Mr. Blake's recommendations.
	Having completed the detailed analysis of the report, I reiterate that it is an exhaustive, illuminating and thorough review, and I repeat my tribute and gratitude to Mr. Blake for such a comprehensive piece of work. I am confident that its enduring legacy will be a better and more caring framework for young trainees and service personnel more generally. The Government have acknowledged that mistakes were made in the past, and that there were failures in the way in which young and sometimes vulnerable recruits were cared for. I believe that the report will constitute a watershed in the treatment of our servicemen and women.
	The services had, of course, already made significant changes and improvements before the Deepcut review, as Mr. Blake readily acknowledges in his report. For example, much greater attention is being paid to risk of self-harm and preventive measures; there are stricter controls over access to firearms; supervision of recruits and trainees has improved; appreciable new investment in facilities and accommodation has occurred and is ongoing; and a new harassment complaints procedure has been implemented.
	However, the Deepcut review has highlighted that there is more that we can do, particularly in some key areas. I can confirm to the House that we accept the great majority of the review's recommendations, although in some cases with necessary and justifiable modification or qualification, as explained in our response. However, in those cases we are still confident that we can give meaning to the intent behind the recommendation. There are very few recommendations that we cannot meet either wholly or in substantial part, and I now turn to these.
	Recommendation 30 concerns the availability of an inquest wherever the death occurs, in this country or overseas. We are very much in sympathy with this thinking, but of course, it bears upon the draft Coroners Bill that has been published for consultation. Consequently, we are in discussion with the Department for Constitutional Affairs as to how that recommendation might be given effect.
	Recommendation 31 also concerns inquests, in this case ensuring that the family of a deceased soldier has access to legal advice and representation. It is our intention to support families as much as we can throughout what are sad and distressing events, but there is a general presumption that interested persons at an inquest do not normally need to be legally represented. However, there is provision, in exceptional cases, for application for funding to be made to the Legal Services Commission. I believe that to be the appropriate mechanism and process to satisfy the recommendation.
	Finally, recommendation 33 recommends to the Surrey police that the families of Sean Benton, Cheryl James and Geoff Gray be provided with copies of the respective Surrey police reports, solely for the purpose of considering whether an application should be made to the High Court to set aside the previous inquest into their child's death. That is of course entirely a matter for the Surrey police, but I have written to the chief constable stating that, in the Ministry of Defence's view, that is a helpful suggestion from Mr. Blake, and that, for our part, we would be happy to co-operate fully in such a process.
	As I said earlier, we have accepted the great majority of the Deepcut review's recommendations, and, as the response that I have published today shows, some are already in the process of being implemented. Work has already begun to address the rest. However, I know that a number of the issues raised in the review are of particular interest to Members, and it is to those that I now turn.
	First, let me emphasise that we fully accept and agree with the review's concern that the needs of service personnel under the age of 18and their vulnerabilitiesshould be recognised. That is now reflected in new guidance to commanding officers. A care of trainees module was introduced to the training programme for instructors and other supervisory staff in 2004. That has now been incorporated in the train the trainer course for instructors, which has been introduced across the armed forces.
	A new supervisory care policy in phase 1 and 2 training establishments was introduced in March this year, and each unit is required to compile an assessment of the risk to trainees that takes account of the particular circumstances of that establishment and its population. There are specific policies aimed at the well-being of under-18s in terms of how they are accommodated, their recreational and social facilities, and their duties, including access to firearms.
	One of the most significant areas of the review is the provision of independent assurance of our processes, and in particular the military justice system and the military complaints systems. We intend to introduce or enhance independent oversight of both those areas. The Police and Justice Bill will provide for the creation of a new combined inspectorate for the criminal justice system. Following discussion with the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary, we intend to use that opportunity to extend and deepen inspection arrangements across the military justice system. Those working within that system strive to perform with professionalism and to standards comparable to those in the civilian criminal justice system. External assurance will serve further to demonstrate that.
	Turning to the military redress of complaints system, as the House is aware, we have already made proposals under the Armed Forces Bill to improve that process and to introduce an independent element to it. We intend that the service complaint panels dealing with complaints such as those relating to harassment and bullying will include an independent member, and that the complaints process will be reviewed annually and publicly by an independent external reviewer. But in the light of the recommendations of the Deepcut review, and of representations made by Members during the consideration of the Bill by the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee, we propose to go further. We propose that the role of the external reviewer should be extended, providing him or her with the ability to accept complaints directly from a serviceperson or a family member, or another third party on their behalf; to have the power to refer such complaints to the chain of command for appropriate action; and to be informed of the outcome of that complaint.
	That wider role would justify the title of service complaints commissioner. Critically, the commissioner would have direct access to Ministers. Furthermore, to ensure effective oversight the commissioner would report annually to Parliament. The House will note that in some practical respects this model for a commissioner is different from that proposed in the Deepcut review. Let me stress that there is, however, no difference between the Government and Mr. Blake over the fundamental intent, which is to promote the effective operation of existing military proceedings and provide independent assurance that the procedures are working effectively, with systemic issues appropriately addressed.
	I now turn to the proposal that a commissioner might have the right to be consulted in disciplinary matters, or have the ability to intervene to institute legal proceedings against prosecution decisions. We believe that that would potentially undermine the role and independence of the prosecuting authorities. I know of no precedent for such a role in the civilian criminal justice system.
	We have listened carefully to evidence given to various Select Committees and by Members of both Houses. We maintainand I hope that right hon. and hon. Members would share this viewthat the chain of command's primary responsibility for welfare should not be undermined. However, in providing for a service complaints commissioner, we accept the need for external, independent assurance, especially for a vulnerable young traineeor his family or friendswho may feel uncomfortable about approaching a commanding officer directly. Subject to views expressed in this House and in the other place, the Government would propose to bring forward amendments to the Armed Forces Bill to provide for a service complaints commissioner.
	Our armed forces are deeply valued by the Government and by the whole House. Their well-being is very much at the heart of this response to the Deepcut review. We are committed to improving the way in which all our recruits are trained, developed and looked after. We are resolute in our aim to deliver real, measurable and tangible improvements to the benefit of all our personnel who serve our country so well. As I stated earlier, this will be a watershed in how our servicemen and women are treated. I am determined to deliver on the commitments, and the external scrutiny that will be put in place will hold us to account now and in the future.

Liam Fox: I am sure that I speak for both sides of the House when I say that we wish profoundly that the tragic deaths of four young people had not made this report necessary, but I am grateful to the Minister for his response and his courtesy in making the statement available to us in advance.
	As I said the last time that we discussed this subject, the social trends in our country today mean that an increasing number of recruits come from broken family backgrounds, have poor academic achievements and are often deficient in basic skills. The fact that the Army can transform them into world class soldiers is something of which we should all be justly proud. We also need to remember that the cases that we are discussing today are very much the exceptions, and I am sure that the Minister would want to underline that.
	Let us remind ourselves of some of the basic facts of this tragedy. Of the four young victims, two had previous clearly recorded episodes of self-harm in their medical notes prior to recruitment. One of the others had clearly documented episodes of self-harm while in the Army. Another was about to be forced to leave the Army against his will. These vulnerable individuals were not only given loaded guns, but put on solitary guard duty in remote locations. They were given both means and opportunity and, as the Minister said, the Government accept that that represented a failure in duty of care.
	The Blake report found that there was bullying, but that it was by no means endemic nor clearly linked to any of the four deaths. However, it also said that there were too few non-commissioned officers to supervise training properlya fact that the Army had pointed out already. What can we learn from the Government's response to the report, and how can we ensure that the tragedies cannot be repeated?
	To begin with, we must make sure that there is a comprehensive system for assessing a recruit's medical history. That means more than merely having sight of medical notes: there must be a proper investigation into the medical history of all recruits. Will the Minister confirm that that has been happening in all cases since 2004?
	What about the ratio of NCOs to recruits? The 2002 report by the Deputy Adjutant-General found that the level of supervision
	was wholly inadequate and greatly magnified the level of risk.
	What has been done to improve that ratio?
	The Minister spoke about phase 2 training, but the problem went beyond supervision. The indeterminate length of that training was a factor that exacerbated the unhappiness of many recruits, so what has been done to ameliorate that?
	The Minister was right to talk about the inquests system, but merely amending the forthcoming Bill is not good enough. At present, 59 inquests into the deaths of servicemen killed in Iraq remain outstanding. There needs to be a change in how the system is operated or funded. I know that the Secretary of State is looking at that, and I hope that the Minister will say where the Government have got to in respect of dealing with the backlog and with the current failures in the inquests system.
	I am pleased that the Government have not caved in to the arguments for introducing a full-blown ombudsman, and that the Minister said that the chain of command's primary responsibility for welfare should not be undermined. The Opposition completely agree, but how will the relationship between commissioner and commander work in practice? What will the interface be? Who will select the commissioner, and according to what criteria? What sort of background will the commissioner have? We would much prefer it if he had a military background, and therefore an understanding of the pressures in the chain of command.
	I am grateful to the Government for their response. We shall look constructively and in detail at what they propose. We need a training system that is nurturing and without harassment or bullying, yet robust enough to prepare youngsters for the sort of tasks that they face in the brutal realities of Iraq or Afghanistan.
	We want the Government to ensure that there is a duty of care, but all hon. Members are fully aware that, in the end, we are training soldiers.

Adam Ingram: I do not intend to comment about the four individual deaths to which the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred. Enough grief has washed over the families involved already, and this has been another bad and difficult day for them. The report looks at those deaths, but goes much wider. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the achievements of our training environment, and I shall not elaborate on what has been said time and again about the quality produced at Deepcut and elsewhere.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring asked a range of questions, some of which have been answered on previous occasions. Additional resources for instructors have been made available, and we are constantly looking at the balance in this matter. I do not want to go into the history too much, but part of the problem in the past was that the training environment was stripped out to meet front-line demand. The Government inherited that problem and have been trying to address it, but strengthening the training environment means that senior and capable personnel are taken away from the front line at an exceptionally busy time. The Government must strike the right balance, and we are making significant progress.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the way in which we assess the background of recruits. New procedures have been put in place to do that, so that we have the best assessment of the nature and characteristics of the young people in question. Not all of them come from vulnerable backgrounds or are damaged individuals, and I would not like it to be thought that that is the quality of the young recruits to Her Majesty's armed forces. It is not. There are some with those characteristics, but many come from stable family homes and military families. None the less, we have to understand the breadth of the range of individuals with whom we are dealing.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the unquestionably important matter of phase 1 and phase 2 training. Our aim is to make sure that we do not have recruits, in effect, sitting around doing nothing while they wait for their next posting, and that has been tackled substantially. The average number of soldiers awaiting trade training for more than 14 days has decreased from more than 1,100 in 2003-04 to 456 in 2005-06, and we shall work to improve that. For Deepcut alone, the comparable figures are a decrease from 136 to 75. Sometimes it happens for a good reason, but we recognise that it is an issue none the less.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about coroner's inquests and the backlog in what is done for those whose bodies are repatriated from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. We have announced new measures, in consultation with the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Three additional assistant deputy coroners, one of whom is a retired High Court judge, will be appointed to assist the Oxfordshire coroner in dealing with the backlog of Iraq-related inquests. As of last week, 59 inquests were outstanding on service personnel whose bodies were repatriated to RAF Brize Norton. We have at all times recognised that that is a problem, and we are now beginning to tackle it. Throughout, the interests of the grieving families must remain paramount.
	The hon. Gentleman asked specific questions about the role of the commissioner and he expressed a strongindeed, prescriptiveview. I would say, let us examine the merits of the role of the commissioner. In the Armed Forces Bill, we will define in broad terms what the commissioner will dowe will have to table amendments, which will be subject to debate in the other place, where the Bill now is, and perhaps in this place when the Bill returns to the Commons. It is worth having the arguments; I simply ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to have an open mind and not to be too prescriptive. Let us see what the best method and the most acceptable solution are. I believe that the framework that we have set out has great merit. An important aspect of that is that it does not undermine the chain of command, which is paramount in all that we seek to do.

Nick Harvey: I thank the Minister for the statement and for advance notice of it. I welcome the Government's positive response to some of the Blake recommendations.
	On the matter of Surrey police sharing with the families evidence to which they have been struggling to gain access for more than three years, I applaud the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has entered into correspondence with the chief constable. If the problem is that the police believe that people gave evidence on an anonymous basis, will he explore with the chief constable the possibility of disclosing the evidence at least initially on an anonymous basis, with names obscured?
	Turning to the crux of the matter, the Minister has just responded to the shadow Secretary of State on the proposed service complaints commissioner. I welcome the Government talking about the importance of independence and bringing independent assurance to the process, but I am sorry that the Minister turned down the opportunity to tell us more about the remit of the commissioner. Who will appoint the commissioner? What will his powers be and what resources will he have? To what extent will the commissioner have the power to instruct a remedy, or will he simply have an advisory role that goes back up the line of command? Will there be independent people on all service complaints panels? What ability will the commissioner have either to intervene in complaints or to initiate inquiries on the basis of evidence that he sees, or of a pattern or picture that he sees emerging? We need to hear a lot more about this matter before we can judge whether, as the Minister says, the title of service complaints commissioner is justified.
	On accommodation for young recruits and recommendations 2 and 8, will the Minister explain why the recommendation to train under-17s in establishments exclusive to that age group has been rejected? Will he reflect on the findings of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the comments of the previous Secretary of State that accommodation is in a worse position than anything else. What does he intend to do about the accommodation issue?

Adam Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for some of his comments, but perhaps not all of them. On the question of Surrey police, we are talking about something that is a matter for the police. The fact that I have written to the chief constable to indicate what I think would be of benefit reflects a view that I have taken from the early stagesas my knowledge grewthat the reopening of the inquests would be desirable. It is not in my power to so direct. The Surrey police information may provide sufficient grounds to allow that to happen, but I do not know, because I have not seen it in detail. I cannot intrude in that matter other than to indicate my strong preference as to what should happen. I cannot direct on that matter.
	On the commissioner's role, the hon. Gentleman had an early view of my statement and I have set out what the remit of the commissioner would be. I have been careful in the responseI do not want to say that this tops and bottoms it or ends it. We are fortunate that we have the Armed Forces Bill where this matter will be ventilated and can be discussed and examined. I would not want to close down on any reasonable suggestion. However, I do not want to put in place or encourage anything that seeks to undermine the important role of the chain of command. That is why we have said that the independent commissioner would have the right of reporting to the commanding officer, the right of follow-up in terms of finding out what happened as a result of all that, and, importantly, the right of access to Ministers and to report annually to Parliament. If there was a pattern developing, or even a significant case, it would be down to that individual to draw the Minister's attention to it if he felt that there was reluctance, unwillingness or blocking on the part of the commanding officer or the system itself. So, we have an insight into what is going on. That has not been there before. However, I will resist any attempt to undermine the independence of the commanding officer or their right to ensure that proper discipline is maintained in their unit. We have made a substantial move and, hopefully, it is to be welcomed and subject to further examination.
	Accommodation is a big issue; there is no question about that. That is why we have re-profiled a lot of our spending approaches to try to make sure that we can lift the quality of accommodation. We have a massive backlog to attend to. The moneys would not simply be available to anyone. We are not talking about a wish list, but about practicalities, given the hundreds of millionsif not billionsof pounds that would be required to improve that accommodation. We have a progressive programme to deal with all that. Although we can see the objectives of the recommendations, the delivery will take some time to achieve. That is what we have now set out to seek to achieve.
	I suggest that the hon. Gentleman take the time to read our response to the recommendationsI accept that he has not had that opportunity. We set out the rationale. It is fairly long and I do not want to read it out in detail, other than to say this: we recognise that there is an issue and we are seeking to address it. We have best practice and very good training environments at Harrogate and Bassingbourn. We can see the quality that comes out of that type of training establishment, where there is a separation of the single young people, and the type of training that we can give them. Whether that can be matched across the whole of the training environment has to be judged in terms of what we are trying to train. We are talking about a soldier going into the front line. We have got to judge the quality and robustness of that training.
	I make a final point to the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Blake's report referred to the unsolicited comment of a young trainee in which he said that he felt that he was being mollycoddled. Soldiers react to being mollycoddled because they might be in the front line tomorrow, so that is why a balance has to be struck.

Joan Humble: I welcome the considered and detailed response that the Minister has given to Nicholas Blake's review. May I question him further on the independent commissionerthe service complaints commissioner? As he is aware, I would have preferred a commissioner with the powers that Nicholas Blake outlined; nevertheless, I welcome the establishment of a service complaints commissioner. As we will be having further discussions on the matter, will the Minister consider the independence and powers of the commissioner, because families will be asking questions about that? For example, he outlined that one of the commissioner's powers will be to refer complaints to the chain of command for appropriate action, but what will happen if the chain of command has already considered those complaints? In such circumstances, the individual concerned and his or her family will want reassurances about the powers of the commissioner and the way in which the commissioner can investigate. Will the Minister consider those powers and give assurances about independence so that the families, in turn, can be reassured?

Adam Ingram: I fully respect and understand the position that my hon. Friend takes, but I ask her to take account of all the other things that we have done. The adult learning inspectorate can carry out notified and unnotified visits to training establishments. It can then examine all the things that we have put in place regarding duty of care to determine whether that is being effectively delivered. The overall delivery is thus subject to independent scrutiny.
	The commissioner will bring to the process a recognition of the fact that many young people feel that they do not have confidence in the system. The same may be the case for their parents, although the young people might not be fortunate enough to have parents who care for them directly. Indeed, a friend of the young person or someone serving alongside them could trigger the process. The people or their families could tell the commissioner that something that had happened had been brushed over. A one-off incident would be bad enough, but if an incident indicated that there was a pattern of events, the commissioner would be on to that very quickly. If there was any indication that the systembe that an individual commanding officer, or a more institutional processwas blocking what the commissioner was trying to do, the commissioner would have access to the Minister and could report accordingly.
	There is now enough raised awareness in the Ministry of Defence for us to realise that we cannot allow the problems of the past to recur. However, we can never guarantee that sad incidents will not happen. We cannot be perfect, and we will never be ablein any part of civil or military life, or any aspect of societyto avoid self-harm or difficult circumstances arising owing to bullying and harassment. However, we are trying to put in place an environment that will ensure that those who have direct responsibility through the zero-tolerance approach will fully understand what they have to do. If they are not delivering, the commissioner will be able to take the matter up with the commanding officer and report to the Minister. There is also the independent overview from the adult learning inspectorate. I do not think that there is any other aspect of what the public service delivers that has such public scrutiny. We have not yet reached a conclusion on the final role of the commissioner, because that will be determined as part of the proceedings on the Armed Forces Bill.

Michael Gove: I thank the Minister for his thoughtful and considered statement. As the constituency Member for Deepcut, I would like to ask about the Government's response to recommendation 8, which was about the future of the training estate. I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Defence two months ago to explain to him that Defence Estates had slated the entire Deepcut barracks for sell-off and future development. Understandably, there is concern in my constituency that the Ministry of Defence wants to wash its hands of Deepcut. Can the Minister assure me that he has total confidence in the current leadership at Deepcut? Will he assure the leadership and the broader community that an excellent job is now being done? Will he give us a clear indication of what the future of the barracks will be and tell us what Defence Estates is up to?

Adam Ingram: I pay tribute to the current leadership and those who carry out the role of instructor. The quality of the young corporals and sergeants, who throw their hearts into trying to create the high-quality trainees and front-line soldiers that we so need, never ceases to amaze me, as I saw on my last visit. There is no question about that. The last inspection by the adult learning inspectorate said that Deepcut had become an exemplar. Perhaps that is a feature of the focus that has been on it, but I think that it would have happened anyway because of the intense effort that has gone in to lift the quality of what we do in the training environment. The train the trainers process will train instructors. We are opening a school at Pirbright in 2007 to do just that, and it will be designed to give quality training to those who become trainers. That has not been done before and was a deficiency. I pay tribute to those who deliver training at Deepcut.
	I have not seen the hon. Gentleman's letter. I do not know what has happened to it. It was not addressed to me and I suppose that it is somewhere within the big sausage machine. No doubt he will get an answer in due course. The defence training review means that I cannot tell him the future of Deepcut, any more than I can tell him the future of any part of the training environment. It is a comprehensive undertaking and a major examination of how best we can deliver training outputs. There will be change. I cannot say how it will affect Deepcut. I do not think that people want to wash their hands of it, which is why I pay tribute to those who deliver the service there. Let us remember that 1,700 recruits go through that establishment each year, as I am sure he is only too well aware. All of them are of a very high quality.

Michael Jabez Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for the comprehensive and thoughtful response to the Blake inquiry. Of course, families will not be wholly satisfied short of a public inquiry, but that was not recommended and I suspect that he will not suggest it today.
	Recommendation 31 deals with legal representation before and during an inquest, and with legal advice that is given earlier. My right hon. Friend said that exceptional funding is available for inquests, but given what else he said, such tragedies will be more exceptional. Is it possible for him to say that legal representation will be available in every case to assist families immediately and in the inquests that may follow?

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend is right about the public inquiry. He is only too well aware that Mr. Blake did not, after all his examination, consider it necessary, assuming that a lot of other things take place. We are delivering on those.
	I gave a lot of thought to all the recommendations, but to recommendation 31 in particular because of the position that families find themselves in at coroners' inquests. However, inquests are not adversarial, as my hon. Friend will know. If we inject a legal process into the arrangements, we could change their very nature. There are other ways in which individuals and families can seek legal remedy, given the circumstances.
	The process is about establishing the facts and getting as much background as possible on what happened. It is then left to others to judge whether a wrongdoing or whatever had taken place. The approach that wesociety as a wholetake to supporting families at coroners' inquests or fatal accident inquiries in Scotland is to give legal support only in exceptional circumstances. It is a matter for the Department with responsibility to consider whether it needs to change the scope and framework of inquests. A Coroners Bill is out for consultation. My hon. Friend may want to make representations accordingly.

Pete Wishart: May I, too, congratulate the Government on their positive response to some of the recommendations? Does the Minister accept, however, that my constituents, Jim and Yvonne Collinson, and the other Deepcut families are no closer to finding out how and why their children died? The Blake report was good in places, but it only told us so much about what happened at Deepcut. Does he accept that, given the Government's positive response to the report, we must find out how and why those young people died? The only way to do so is to compel witnesses to come forward and cross-examine them in a public inquiry.

Adam Ingram: No, I do not, because that would not achieve the end result sought by the hon. Gentleman. The Blake review was exhaustive, and it examined all of that territory. I do not think that anything was held back or that Mr. Blake was hoodwinkedI am not saying that the hon. Gentleman made such a suggestion. Mr. Blake put a great deal of effort into the review and, while he was critical of some aspects of what was going on, he revealed information of which we were not previously aware, allowing us to take action accordingly.
	The presumption behind the hon. Gentleman's question is that the process of a public inquiry would lead to the how and why, but we cannot be certain that it would do so. There have been five police reports, and we have conducted our own internal investigations. He said that Blake's was a good report in part, but I think that it is a good report in total. If Mr. Blake had concluded that a public inquiry was necessary, I would have been in a dilemma, given my view that that was not the case. I would have had to weigh his opinion against my own. It is with a sense of relief that I find that I do not have to do so, as he advances an extremely solid argument to support the conclusion that a public inquiry is not necessary. I hope that we all use our best judgment to find on the same basis. It is easy to continue running a campaign, but for what purpose, if it does not produce the result that is sought?

Kevan Jones: I often think that dealing with the Ministry of Defence is like pushing water uphill. We are slowly getting there, given the announcement of a commissioner, who will provide the independent oversight that is needed. Like the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), I am concerned that we have not been provided with details of the commissioner's role and remit. My right hon. Friend the Minister said that we needed more discussion, but following a report by the Select Committee on Defence and discussion of the Armed Forces Bill, is it not time to determine the detail of the commissioner's role? Unless we do so, we will be reluctant to support the proposal when we debate the Armed Forces Bill in the House. Unlike the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), I believe that it is vital that the commissioner should be independent. The expectation that he should be associated with the armed forces is quite wrong, so I urge the Minister not to appoint anyone who is connected in any way with the military chain of command.

Adam Ingram: I am sorry that my hon. Friend thinks that he is pushing water uphill. I do not know whether he is Jack and I am Jill, or whether it is the other way round, but this is a very good complex issue. Having served on a Select Committee, I know that it is easy for Select Committees to offer headline solutions.

Kevan Jones: Rubbish!

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is critical, but I should be grateful if he allowed me to express my view. It is easy to provide headlines and expect someone else to deliver, which is exactly what the Select Committee recommended. It was a helpful recommendation, and I do not wish to diminish it. The first piece of legislation that I steered through the House as a Northern Ireland Minister dealt with the reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and one of the main issues that it addressed was the need to put in place an ombudsman to deal with police complaints. It took us a long time to achieve agreement, as my hon. Friend will accept, but it was not a case of pushing water uphill. It was a case of getting the best definition because it had to stand the test of time.
	We are fortunate that we have the Armed Forces Bill, which allows proper scrutiny through the parliamentary process, rather than a prescriptive definition, top and bottom, by a Minister, albeit a Minister such as I, who has a great deal of detailed knowledge of the subject. I am prepared to set out the very broad but very specific parameters of what we are seeking to do with the new position, and I want to hear what is said and whether we have gone far enough once we define it in the Bill.
	I can think of no better way of arriving at the best conclusion than having that whole debate in the open, rather than by ministerial edict. As for being prescriptive, my hon. Friend said what should not happen. I am not responding to that, because I want to hear the arguments for and against. We have time to do it. We can do it through a form of legislation. We have the vehicle for that, fortuitously. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to participate in that debate.

Michael Penning: I am sure the Minister will agree that we need fair, robust and disciplined training for our armed forces. When I went through basic training as a 16-year-old soldier, one thing that we had then which we do not have now to address the myriad problems that young people have was trained soldiers in the barrack rooms with us throughout our basic training. When I recently visited the training regiment at Pirbright, several times while I was there the question was, Would you like to have training soldiers in the rooms with you? and the answer was, Yes, we would, because it addresses the camaraderie and the training that they needed. Will the Minister consider that? He mentioned that we would debate the Armed Forces Bill when it returns from the other place. Can he confirm that we will have an opportunity to debate it in the House?

Adam Ingram: On the latter point, was the hon. Gentleman asking when or whether the Bill would come back to the House?

Michael Penning: Will it come back here for debate?

Adam Ingram: That depends what happens in the other place. I am not the master of that. The fact that the Bill is to be amended means that it will have to come back. I will not go into parliamentary procedure, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity to say what he wants to say about the detail.
	On the subject of trained soldiers alongside recruits, is that desirable? Does it raise accommodation issues? I prefer to hear what those who are expert in the matter say, rather than expressing the ministerial position. It could be a sensible proposition. The hon. Gentleman said it helped him, but maybe he needed a lot of help.

Michael Penning: Trained soldiers asked me, because they needed help.

Adam Ingram: We must consider what benefits would flow from the proposal. Then there is the question of how many people would be required. Is there a benefit? Possibly. How many would need to be available to deliver it? The instructors are trained soldiers, as we know

Michael Penning: No, they are not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the hon. Gentleman is an ex-serviceman and has a great deal of knowledge, but when he asks a question of a Minister, he must get a reply, just as in the Army, when the sergeant starts speaking, he has to listen.

Adam Ingram: I hope I do not get the same admonition, Mr. Speaker.
	One of the aims that we seek to achieve with the new accommodation blocks is a better spirit of camaraderie. One of the failings of single living accommodation was that it allowed individuals, trained or untrained, to live in an isolated room of their own. We have therefore reconstructed our approach so that there is now a common area and more integration. We need trained personnel close to all of that, butat the risk of contradicting my earlier comment that it would be wrong of a Minister to try to impose a solutionit would have to be with a light touch, not a heavy touch. It must be carefully managed so that people grow and are not dragged up. People should grow naturally with best example, not forced example.

Meg Hillier: I want to preface my remarks to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Lady is a new Member. She does not need to preface her remarks to an Opposition Member. She needs to ask the Minister one supplementary question.

Meg Hillier: Forgive me, Mr. Speaker. I will speak to the hon. Member for Woodspring later. I have three quick questions

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said just one.

Meg Hillier: I have one quick question. I am heartened that the Minister has written to Surrey police, but I want to place it on the record that I have not received a response to my letter to Surrey police in two and a half months and that none of the familiesI represent the Gray familyhas received anything. Can anything be done to pursue that matter? On recommendation 31, I fully endorse the comments by my right hon. Friend the Minister and wonder what conversations he has had with the Department for Constitutional Affairs. On recommendation 26, has he had any contact with the Canadian forces about their experiment with an ombudsman, which has been highly successful and did not involve anyone with a military background? I welcome the steps in response to recommendation 26, but I wonder what further progress will be made.

Adam Ingram: I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not get the chance to put all her questions. I am also sorry to hear her comments about Surrey police, and suggest that she take up the matter with the relevant Minister. It is a matter of regret that the families have not received a response, and I will see what more I can do in that particular area. On the experience of others, whether it involves Canadians, Australians or the Dutch, we have examined how we can best deliver our objectives. I have not had a discussion with the Canadian forces, but I have examined what is possible in terms of structure and therefore output.
	The window has been left slightly open because of the Armed Forces Bill. We have defined the broad parameters of what we are seeking to do, and our objectives are comprehensive and will make a substantial difference. If, however, other examples are brought into play during the process of consideration, we must consider them and respond according to the normal democratic processes. There is no doubt in my mind that the debate in the other place on that issue will be intense.

Lembit �pik: Nicholas Blake clearly stated that if the Government refused to establish an independent commissioner for military complaints, he would call for a full, independent public inquiry into the Deepcut deaths. Is it not obvious that the Government have refused that specific recommendation and that years of co-operation and patience on the part of the parents have been paid back with secrecy and defensiveness by the authorities and a process that actually refers complaints back into the chain of command for action? Does the Minister recognise that he has left us no option but to force a full independent public inquiry, presumably with Nicholas Blake's support, without which the parents will receive few answers, little disclosure, no commissioner and no justice?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman and I have worked closely on this matter, but a big gap has appeared, which I regret. Nicholas Blake did not make that point in his report and did not make it a condition, and only he can comment on whether he is satisfied or otherwise with our recommendations. Rather than jumping to the conclusion that Mr. Blake is not satisfied, the hon. Gentleman should wait to hear what, if anything, Mr. Blake says. I do not accept that there has been secrecy and defensiveness. I do not know how many statements I have made to the House or how much more transparency is required. Our actions have been extensive, and I think that we have gone a considerable way to meeting what the hon. Gentleman wants. The point underlying the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the chain of command should be stripped of responsibility.

Lembit �pik: indicated dissent.

Adam Ingram: I am trying to interpret what the hon. Gentleman has said, in the same way as he interpreted what Mr. Blake has said. If he is saying that putting the complaint back to the chain of command somehow undermines the quality of the decision-making process, I disagree fundamentally, and I will tell him why. The chain of command has to ensure proper discipline and structure in the organisation for which it is responsible. We cannot allow that to be transferred to someone else, even someone with a military background. We have rejected Mr. Blake's recommendation that someone with a civilian background should try to determine the right to go to legal process, because there is nowhere in our civil processes where that would apply.
	This matter has been given very careful consideration. I uphold the primacy of the chain of command. I recognise that it has made mistakes in the past and will do so in the future. It is not perfect, but that is not for the want of professionalism, commitment and a determination to deliver what is best. The hon. Gentleman's judgment should be based on how many recruits go through that training environment year upon year. It is not a broken regime. If anything, it is an exemplar for the rest of the public service, and it passes muster with anything internationally.

Crispin Blunt: Following Deepcut and, perhaps more importantly, the growing separation between the military and the rest of society and the enormous operational commitment now undertaken by the armed forces, the challenge faced by the training establishment in producing the world-class soldiers referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) grows all the time. Does the Minister accept not only that the Army must put its best officers and NCOs into the training establishment, but that the Government must support investment in the training establishmentpreferably with money from the Treasury, but if that is not available, from the balance of resources that he presides over? The training establishment will have to get more resources, perhaps at the expense of the equipment programme or other areas, because people who are making the change from ordinary members of society into world-class soldiers must have the necessary investment now and a growing scale of investment in future.

Adam Ingram: If I did not know that before, I certainly know it now, not only because of what the hon. Gentleman has said but because of the learning process that I have had to go through over the past five years in dealing with this issue. That is why more resources have been put into the training environment and why we corrected the decision made in past years. I am not making an adverse comment, but merely saying that a decision was taken that had to be reversed because it had not produced the right results, and we therefore had to find a new way of doing things.
	We are instituting the train the trainer environment and opening up a new school for all instructors because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the best soldier is not necessarily the best instructor and the best officer is not necessarily the best person to run a training establishment. It is a question of finding the right people for the right roles. If someone needs to make up a deficiency in their knowledge base, that is what their training process will entail. It will lift their skills and knowledge and the subtleties that they have to apply in dealing with young people, and sometimes not-so-young people, as they put them through that training environment. I would argue that we have very high-quality training, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is not saying anything different. I agree, however, that we have to make it even better because of the demands that are now placed upon our service personnel.

Mark Pritchard: The introduction of the service complaints commissioner provides a new process by which people can make complaints, but it is a formal process which some recruits might find intimidating. Does the Minister agree that the Army chaplaincy plays a valuable role as regards complaints within the armed services? Is he aware that currently the Territorial Army is 26 undermanned as far as chaplains are concerned and that the regular Army is looking for 16 extra chaplains? What will he do to address that important issue?

Adam Ingram: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. Others should listen to the way in which the argument was presented. If the process that we are considering has to be triggered, that almost constitutes a failure because it means that all the other duty of care mechanisms that we have put in place will somehow not have picked up the problem. That is why we are investing so heavily not only in the chaplaincy but in all the other informal and formal structures so that people know that anonymous helplines are available, that they can go to Samaritans, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and a range of contact points.
	The other important aspect is that all our instructors will be better trained to pick up the noises off. If there is a problem, they should tackle it quickly. If anything goes to the commissioner, that is, in a sense, a failure, assuming that the case is proven. It may not bea case could be anecdotal or not add up to anything. However, we need the protective mechanism so that, if people feel that nobody has been listening to themthat has been part of the complaint in the pastthat final recourse is available. It could end up on a Minister's desk. The process is therefore well rounded but it has to succeed at the bottom, not only at the top. If it does not succeed at the bottom, we have a problem. I do not believe that we have a problem; we have issues to which we must attend, and we are doing that.
	I cannot provide a specific answer on the chaplaincywe do not have the power to dragoon members of the Churches or of other faiths into uniform. However, I appreciate that it is an important part of what we do and I hope that the Churches and other faith groups are examining how best they can help us.

BILL PRESENTED

Honours (Prevention of Corruption)

Mr. Angus MacNeil, supported by Dr. Richard Taylor, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Alex Salmond, Adam Price, Angus Robertson, Hywel Williams, Mr. Mike Weir, Stewart Hosie and Pete Wishart, presented a Bill to regulate the award of life peerages to donors to political parties; to create an Honours and Appointments Commission with responsibilities relating to the awarding of certain honours and life peerages to donors to political parties; to create a quarantine period between the award of an honour and a donation to a political party; to regulate donations to political parties from individuals or organisations who benefit from government contracts or sponsor government programmes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed. [Bill 196].

Special Educational Needs

John Bercow: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that statements by local authorities relating to special educational needs are issued independently of decisions about the funding of facilities and services arising from such needs.
	In that context, I declare an interest as the father of a two-and-a-half-year-old boy who will almost certainly have special educational needs.
	Interest in special educational needs in the House since the general election has been reflected in no fewer than 93 written and oral parliamentary questions. In addition, although there has been no debate on the subject in Government time, three debates have been held on the issue, notably those initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on 22 June last year in Opposition time, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) on 29 November and the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on 7 March, whose debate covered Asperger's syndrome in her constituency.
	What are the central facts about special educational needs? There are currently 1,230,800 children with special educational needs, but without a statement, in this country. In addition, 242,600 children have special educational needs and a statement. Of course, the needs vary greatly. They can result from learning difficulties, sensory impairments or physical disabilities. It is important to understand that they can be moderate and one-dimensional. However, they can also be severe, complex and multifaceted. We can be fairly sure of one fact in that labyrinthine field: there is no evidence to suggest that any reduction in the number of children with special educational needs is likely soon. Indeed, the evidence points overwhelmingly in the opposite direction. A continuing increase in the number of children with special educational needs is expected.
	It is therefore noteworthy and a source of concern that, as a result of direct Government encouragement, the number of new statements of special educational needs is in marked decline. In 1998, 35,650 new statements were issued; by 2004, the figure had fallen to 26,000. It is important for all right hon. and hon. Members to reflect and to come to a view on the statementing process.
	I want to make a number of observations that seem to be fair-minded and relevant. First, a great many parents regard a statement as a lever that they can pull, a source of comfort or a guarantee of assistance. I do not sniff at that; it is extremely important. However, large numbers of them are simultaneously gravely concerned by the weaknesses in the existing statementing process. To put it simply, the process is too bureaucratic, too adversarial, too time-consuming, too expensive and, all too often, too vague. As a consequence of those failings in the system, too many children wait too long, are promised too little and receive even less.
	We can observe the evidence recently produced in a serious study by the National Autistic Society. It conducted a survey that showed that 31 per cent. of children, according to their parents, are not getting the help that has been promised in their statement, and that only 55 per cent. of children are receiving the speech and language therapy that their statement stipulates that they should receive. In the light of those statistics, it is perhaps unsurprising that 79 per cent. of the parents who appeal, in protest against that lamentable state of affairs, to the special educational needs and disability tribunalSENDISTare successful in their appeals.
	This is a serious situation. People have to wait a long time and are often promised less than they think is their due. They then find that they are not even to be given what they have belatedly and inadequately been promised. It is incredibly difficult even to enforce the entitlement that they have, in a very delayed fashion, been given. These are serious concerns.
	The second concern involves SENDIST itself. Thousands of parents appeal every year. They do so because they have been denied a statutory assessment of their child, or because they have been denied the issue of a statement for their child. They appeal because there is an insufficiency of specific support in their child's statement, or because they have been denied their preference of school for their child.
	Significantly, increasingly and ominously, however, there is evidence of difference in success at the tribunals depending on socio-economic status. To put it bluntly, someone who is educated, articulate and relatively deep-pocketed will do well at a tribunal because they make their appeal, they hire the solicitors, they secure the specialist reports and they fight the system. Those people are successful. However, people who are uneducated, inarticulate and have no money are less likely to go to a tribunal. If they do, they are less likely to succeed, because they are less likely to be able to afford or secure the specialist services that are often a prerequisite of success. They will fail. They will lose.
	The time has come to change the system, and I would like to make a number of specific suggestions in the context of adopting a new approach. First, we should dispense with statements and replace them with special needs profiles. The responsibility for crafting such profiles would fall to accredited assessors from the educational psychology profession. They would decide on the level of support that should be provided to the child, choosing from a number of tiers.
	Secondly, we need to establish a national funding agency separate from and independent of the arrangements outlined in my first proposal. The necessary payment would come from that funding agency, and it would go with the parent, on behalf of the pupil, travelling with him or her to the institution that he or she attends.
	My third proposal is that we establish a special educational needs standing commission. Its role would be to accredit the assessors, to hear appeals and to offer advicein the light of emerging practice and policyto the national funding agency about requirements and needs and the increase in public expenditure necessary to meet them.
	My central thesis is that that would be a real advantage over the present system, which is weak because local education authorities assess and decide, pay and provide. For the most part, they are in control of the whole process, and we need to make it a great deal more independent. We need to make it quicker and fairerindependent of the Government, independent of local authorities and independent of the sources of supply. That, surely, makes sense.
	I do not decry the very real efforts made in the field of special educational needs. It is a complex area, in which there is always a danger of generalisation. There is good practice, bad practice and indifferent practice. Every child is unique; each case is different; but there are serious weaknesses. I politely suggest to the Government that a real problem is now emerging: the desire to cut costs and the elevation of the useful tool of inclusion into some sort of dogmatic edict in every particular, which is grossly damaging and needs to be changed. We are talking not about guinea pigs in some giant experiment of starry-eyed social engineering, but about children who need help, more help and better help, and who need it now. My Bill will help to provide it, so I commend it with enthusiasm to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by John Bercow, Mr. Peter Bone, Mr. Douglas Carswell, Mrs. Nadine Dorries, Mr. Nick Gibb, Stephen Hammond, Mr. John Hayes, Mr. Philip Hollobone, Kelvin Hopkins, Dr. Julian Lewis, Mr. George Mudie and Bob Spink.

Special Educational Needs

John Bercow accordingly presented a Bill to require that statements by local authorities relating to special educational needs are issued independently of decisions about the funding of facilities and services arising from such needs: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 195].

Points of Order

Meg Hillier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the previous statement by the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made some inaccurate commentsunintentionally, I am sureabout the reasons behind the death at Deepcut barracks of my constituent's son. For the family's sake, I want that inaccuracy to be put on the record.

Lembit �pik: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Cheryl James, the daughter of one of my constituents, also died at Deepcut barracks. For the avoidance of doubt, I support what the hon. Lady has said. No substantiated evidence of self-harm has been produced. It is important to put that on the record, because it has caused great distress to the parents. It would be a shame and very upsetting if that misunderstanding were repeated in today's record.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The whole House understands the sensitivity of the issues, but it does not prevent my saying that it is not in order to pursue a matter of debate in the guise of a point of order. In the case of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), Mr. Speaker specifically refused her request earlier. Both hon. Members have now had their opportunity to make their point. As they must know, they will have further opportunities to raise particular matters of contentionincluding with the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), if they wish. They should also give him notice of their intention to pursue the debate in that way.

WORK AND FAMILIES BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Work and Families Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 5th December 2005 (Work and Families Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendment
	1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Amendment shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent Stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.  [Steve McCabe.]
	 Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Work and Families Bill

Lords amendment considered.

Schedule 1
	  
	Leave and pay related to birth or adoption: further amendments

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I beg to move, that this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	The Lords amendment was tabled by the Government to correct a minor drafting error in schedule 1, which amends section 80E of the Employment Rights Act 1996. At paragraph 38, line 32 the schedule currently reads:
	The employers on whom duties may be imposed by regulations under section 80AA or 80BB include not only employees exercising rights by virtue of that section and their employers.
	The paragraph then lists other people covered by the law. The correct wording is:
	The persons on whom duties may be imposed by regulations under section 80AA or 80BB include not only employees exercising rights by virtue of that section and their employers
	and so on.
	As well as not achieving the policy intention of including mothers as well as employers, the current wording of paragraph 38(3) does not make sense, as the definition of employer cannot include employees. It is clear that that was a minor drafting error made during the construction of the Bill. The error was unfortunately only noticed shortly before Third Reading in the other place, hence the requirement to make an amendment at this late stage.
	I ask hon. Members to agree with the Lords in accepting the amendment, and I apologise to the House for any inconvenience caused.

Eleanor Laing: May I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to his new post and congratulate him on the excellent brevity of his first speech on this subject? May I astound the House by agreeing with him entirely in every word? This is clearly a drafting error. The Bill does not make sense as it stands and it must be corrected. I certainly do not oppose the Lords amendment. I will resist the temptation to go further into the rights and wrongs of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which, of course, was mostly right, not wrong, given its date. I entirely agree with the Minister and support the Lords amendment.

Edward Davey: I welcome the Minister. We agree.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.

ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Electoral Administration Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 25th October 2005 (Electoral Administration Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting or at the moment of interruption on this day, whichever is the later.
	2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely: 7 to 15, 61 to 75, 1 to 6, 16 to 60 and 76 to 132.
	 Subsequent Stages
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.  [Steve McCabe.]
	 Question agreed to.

Electoral Administration Bill

[Relevant documents: First Joint Report from the Constitutional Affairs and ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committees, Session 2004-05, HC 243, on Electoral Registration; and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6647. Oral and Written Evidence, taken by the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Session 2005-06, on Electoral Administration, HC 640-i and 640-ii, and on Party Funding, HC 1060-i.]
	 Lords amendments considered.
	New Clause
	 Lords amendment: No. 7, before clause 13, to insert a new clause Absent voting: personal identifiers.

Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 8 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 15, 47 to 49, 59, 60, 79 to 81, 89 to 93, 95, 102 and 131.

Bridget Prentice: I have placed in the Vote Office an explanatory note on these Lords amendments that, I hope, will help hon. Members to wade through the 130-odd Lords amendments before us this evening. They simply explain what the amendments will do, rather than give any detailed background to them, but I hope that they will help us to move through the course of the debate.
	I ask the House to agree with the Lords in amendments Nos. 7, 9 to 15, 47 to 49, 59, 60, 79 to 81, 89 to 93, 95, 102, and 131, but to disagree with the Lords in amendment No. 8.
	Lords amendment No. 7 was tabled by Lord Elder and built upon by the Government. Taken together, the series of Lords amendments are designed to enhance the security of postal voting by establishing a scheme that provides for the use of identifiers by postal voters at elections. The amendments had support from all sides in the other place. They provide for the collection of personal identifiers from persons applying to vote by post or proxy. Postal and proxy vote applicants will be required to provide their date of birth and signature on application forms. The amendments provide for the retention of identifiers by electoral registration officers and set out the purposes for which they may be used.
	At elections, postal voters will be required to provide their signature and date of birth on the postal voting statement that they must complete and return with their postal vote ballot paper. All postal voters, including proxy postal voters, will be subject to that requirement. A postal ballot paper will not be deemed valid if the postal voting statement does not include both a signature and a date of birth. Furthermore, returning officers will be required to take steps to verify the signature and date of birth on that statement, which will involve checking that the identifiers provided on the postal voting statement correspond with those previously provided on the postal vote application. If they do not correspond, the ballot paper will be rejected. The detailed arrangements for checking postal voting statements will be set out in regulations. Under the amendments, there will be no change to the current voter registration arrangements. The amendments therefore remove from the Bill the provisions that would have allowed personal identifiers to be piloted and rolled out as part of the voter registration system.
	On Lords amendment No. 8, we have said previously that we accept the principle behind individual registration. We have also accepted the practical value that the use of personal identifiers might have in combating fraud. However, it is also an important principle that everyone who is entitled to register to vote is registered. Under-registration disfranchises individuals and skews the map of political representation. Northern Ireland is often cited on both sides of the debate. The main Opposition party has frequently called for us to introduce into Great Britain the tried and tested system of individual registration. Individual registration in Northern Ireland has had some benefits, especially for the perceived security of the process, but it is not true that the experience in Northern Ireland is an argument for that system to be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom.
	When individual registration was first introduced in Northern Ireland, 120,000 entries dropped off the registera decrease of some 10 per cent. in those on the register. The 1,192,136 entries in August 2002 had decreased to 1,072,425 by December of that year. At the next canvass, the total number of entries fell slightly further to 1,069,160. The Government have taken steps to address that decline, first by reintroducing a period of one year's grace before entries are removed from the register, and secondly by introducing new primary legislation.

Oliver Heald: If the hon. Lady went to Northern Ireland and talked the matter through with its electoral registration officer, she would find that, as she says, there was a dip. However, as a result of active canvassing, within a matter of months, 92 per cent. of those on the census were registered to vote in Northern Ireland, which was described by the Northern Ireland Office at the time as an outstanding success. How can she try to wriggle out of what is the obvious solution?

Bridget Prentice: The rigorous canvassing did increase registration, which had suffered an extreme dip, but has not increased it to anything near the original figure of 1,190,000. As I said, new primary legislation has been required to try to rectify some of those issues. Therefore, we believe that individual registration is not yet ready to be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Chris Ruane: With regard to the Northern Ireland statistics showing that registration dipped as low as 82 per cent. and then increased to 92 per cent., a registration rate of 92 per cent. on the UK mainland would not be acceptable. We want 100 per cent. registration. Anything that decreases registration should not go ahead.

Bridget Prentice: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which he has raised with me and with other Ministers. It is essential for us to do all we can to ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote is on the register and we should therefore not introduce unnecessary blocks to prevent that. Such action would constitute as much of an insult to democracy as some of the other actions that we are discussing.

Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the Electoral Commission's stance on individual voter registration?

Bridget Prentice: The commission supports individual voter registration. We in Government disagree with the commission, as I have explained. We have said that we agree with the principle and we are implementing it in relation to postal votes because of the particular problems that have arisen in that regard.

Oliver Heald: If the hon. Lady leaves all the bogus entries on the register, such as Hooty McBoob, Michael Mouse and Gus Troubev, which is an anagram of bogus voter, and there is active canvassing of new people who should be on the register, registration could be as high as 110 per cent.

Bridget Prentice: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, although that is an amusing suggestion, we shall not be implementing it. We have included a variety of processes for the canvass. Electoral registration officers can take a number of strong measures to ensure that the register is accurate, ensuring that those who should not be on the register are not on it and that those who should be on it are.

Philip Davies: The Minister appears complacent. Is she aware of the position in my part of the world? In Bradford, election results have been called into question because of concern about voter fraud. There has also been concern about the police time taken up in investigation of all the fraud accusations. Does she accept that the amendments provide a simple way of addressing many of the worries in Bradford and in the country as a whole?

Bridget Prentice: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman intervened. The amendments that I am asking the House to support will indeed address the points that he raised in relation to Bradford and elsewhere.
	I mentioned the Northern Ireland example. We are also concerned about the drafting of Lords amendment No. 8. It makes several references to the role to be played by the Chief Electoral Officer. Outside Northern Ireland, there is no such officer; the role is played by local electoral registration officers. That would create a serious flaw in the operation of the proposed scheme.
	Individual registration has potential benefits for the security of postal voting, particularly through the collection of personal identifiers such as signature and date of birth. That is why we included it in the Bill. We wanted to test the use of personal identifiers. Because the provisions have not yet gained the confidence of Parliament, we have adopted the alternative compromise proposed by my noble Friend Lord Elder. As I have explained, the proposal targets the use of personal identifiers primarily at postal voting. It meets the security concerns about postal ballots, and deals with concerns about the impact of personal registration on the number of people registered to vote.

David Taylor: In the interests of absolute clarity, is the Government's reason for resisting the Lords amendment based solely on the perceived likely reduction in the level of registration? If it can be demonstrated that individual registration is far and away the best means of protecting against fraud, will the Government reconsider whether there are alternatives for tackling the slightly lower levels of registration that might result?

Bridget Prentice: I said at the outset that, in principle, we accept individual registration; we do not have a principled objection to it. However, it is clear that there are two issues that should be considered, the first of which is that the term of punishment for any offence relating to false registration will be increased from six months to 51 weeks. Some 3 million people are not on the register who should be on it, and if there were a 10 per cent. drop in registration in Great Britain, that would add another 4 million people to that figure. A register that has up to 7.5 per cent. of its eligible electors missing does not make a good register.
	The Bill includes a number of important changes to the way in which registration and elections will be run, and the Government are confident that they will meet our objectives. However, we will keep the impact of this legislation under review and share the results of our evaluation with the House. This may also be an appropriate issue for the Constitutional Affairs Committee to consider, and we would welcome any such further scrutiny from it.
	We will also consider whether further evaluation may be appropriate once the Law Commission has concluded its report on the use of a formal process of post-legislative scrutiny. The Government believe that this is the appropriate way forward, and I therefore hope that Members will reject the amendment.

Oliver Heald: We in this House must do everything that we can to tackle electoral fraud. Faith in our democratic process has been undermined by recent allegations. A judge has said that our system is wide open to fraud and similar to that of a banana republic. Only last week, election results in Coventry were questioned when it was found that people who were in Pakistan on the day of the vote somehow managed to vote in person at the polling station. I understand that there are currently no fewer than eight petitions in the High Court alleging electoral fraud in the recent local elections.
	Parliament cannot ignore this problem, especially as we have always taken great pride in our democracy. We used to lecture the world about parliamentary democracy; now, we are in the dock, accused of complacency. Our system is criticised not only by the Electoral Commissionthat is an important factand by judges; it was also criticised by international election observers at the last general election, including those from Ukraine and Serbia. A few years ago, we would not have expected to have to take lectures from such countries about our system. That says a lot about how our stock has fallen.

Bob Spink: My hon. Friend mentioned that there are eight outstanding electoral petitions. Does he accept that, if the hurdle to tabling electoral petitions was not set so high in financial terms and in other ways, there would be many more of them? A number of petitions that barristers said would certainly have succeeded have not gone forward because of those financial and other barriers. The House should act to remove them.

Oliver Heald: It is an expensive, time-consuming and difficult process, and the fact that there are as many as eight petitions says something, because that is a substantial number.
	Every authority that has examined this question has called for individual voter registration and personal identifiers. I strongly support Lords amendment No. 8, and I pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Hanham. The amendment simply requires a signature and a date of birth for everyone going on to the voting register. I am disappointed that the Government continue to drag their feet on this issue. I have always said that I prefer the system used in Northern Ireland, where national insurance numbers are used to verify registration. That is an excellent example to follow, and the Government have crowed about that system as an outstanding success story. A consensus must be reached, and it could be reached around Lords amendment No. 8.
	The Government have already accepted that voters who apply for postal votes should have to give their date of birth and signature. That was a welcome concession, made in Lords amendment No. 7. However, if that is all right for postal votes, why cannot it be done more generally? Given that it is already accepted that two forms of identification are required for a postal ballot, why is not that an acceptable approach that could be used for identifying voters more widely? The amendment would require a signature and date of birth to be included in all voters' registration, not only in that of postal voters. I would still like to see national insurance numbers added as a personal identifier for voter registrationindeed, I have argued myself into the ground about itbut in the interests of trying to achieve a consensus, I am prepared to leave it until another opportunity arises to get it on the statute book. I hope that that will not be as a result of another scandal of the sort that we have seen in recent months. We have to secure personal identifiers for voter registration generally.
	Hon. Members will be aware of the Electoral Commission's campaign for individual voter registration and personal identifiers. From the outset of proceedings on the Bill, it has called for personal identifiers. The Government have gone some way towards that, and we all welcome Lords amendment No. 7. However, in the commission's briefing for this debate it says:
	The Commission is delighted that the House of Lords has voted to accept an amendment tabled by Baroness Hanham requiring applicants to provide signatures and dates of birth when registering to vote.
	The amendment introducing personal identifiers for postal voting was introduced by the Lord Elder, a Labour peer, and it had the support of my noble Friend Baroness Hanham and of Lord Rennard, so we managed to reach agreement across the parties, which allapart from Labourwanted to make further progress. The recent alleged fraud in Coventry was the background to the debate in the other place and spurred them on. They did not want to see such things happening again. The Coventry example is just one in a long line of cases where identity has allegedly been impersonated at the polling station. The use of personal identifiers would go a long way towards protecting individuals from that kind of fraud.
	The Minister in the other place spoke in support of the principle time and time again. In Committee, she stated:
	collecting personal identifiers has the potential to improve security and integrity in the electoral process.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 2006; Vol. 679, c. GC593.]
	At that stage she also expressed her strong views about making sure that forms requesting information from people should be simple and straightforward.
	Schedule 1 requires voters to sign for their ballot paper at the polling station. The amendment would therefore introduce a useful check against fraud. Those registering to vote would provide a signature that would go on the register, which would then provide a check of whether the person signing for the vote was the same person who had registered. In circumstances such as those that allegedly occurred in Coventry, that would be extremely useful. I do not see how the provision of a signature at the polling station will be much use if there is no register of the original signature in the first place. What is more, our amendment would save voters the worry of finding a legitimate counterfoil to prove their signature in any fraud investigation.
	There can be few legal forms that entitle one to do something but do not involve a signature and the provision of simple details, such as date of birth. It is suggested by some that it would be so difficult that it would put people off registering to vote. However, those of us who take a close interest in these matters know that people fill in forms for almost every activity in life and that they almost always have to sign their name and give their date of birth. How difficult is it for people to sign their names? That question shows how pathetic it is that this important change is not being made by all-party agreement.
	During the Bill's passage through the House, the Government accepted that a person's signature and date of birth should be used for postal voting, so how can it be said that the same requirement is too hard to be used elsewhere? My voter registration form from the London borough of Lambeth says that any change of details must be backed up by a signature and a date of birth. Lord Rennard made the same point in the other place. Lambeth is an example of a Labour council already doing something that I am calling for.

Chris Ruane: Under the current system, people do not have to give their signature. Last September's Electoral Commission report on under-registration found that between 4 million and 4.5 million people were not registered to vote. Any requirement to supply a signature and therefore make filling in the form more difficult would cause the under-registration figure to increase to 5 million people.

Oliver Heald: I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should think that that would happen. For how many things in life are people required to sign their names? The answer is that they have to do so for almost anything. People have learned how to sign their names, even under the Labour education system. Even under Labour, they know when they were born. It is not too much to ask for such simple information.
	Personally, I do not think that there is much harm in asking for a national insurance number, but I have given way on that because I want to achieve consensus. What the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said is old-fashioned. Not only does he clearly believe in the patrician system, with the head of the household filling in the form for everyone else, but he fails to realise what the real problem is. What happens when a registration form goes out to a flat or a house in multiple occupation? The person whose name appears on the form may well throw it in the bin. What happens if it goes to a father who thinks that the women in the house should not vote? The form may not even have those women listed.
	The range of possibilities is wide because the current process works against the grain of modern society. People see themselves as individuals with rights. It is true that our society is consumerist in its thinking, but people do not believe that the head of a household should organise how that household's members should vote. This is the 21st century, when we believe in one person, one vote.
	It is about time that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd came up to date. Individual voter registration is proposed by the Electoral Commission, the body of independent experts set up by his Labour Government to advise on this very matter. Yet the Government have such utter contempt for its recommendations that they say that they are going to pick and choose between them. What a disgrace.

Chris Ruane: At present, between 4 million and 4.5 million people are not registered to vote. Last September's report from the Electoral Commission found that, in the main, they were unemployed, on low pay and living in council or social housing. They also included a lot of young people and people from the black and ethnic minorities. Is the hon. Gentleman so unconcerned about under-registration simply because people from those groups do not vote Conservative? If they lived in Acacia gardens as opposed to Corporation close, would he pay more attention to under-registration?

Oliver Heald: I am worried that the hon. Gentleman is letting his blind political prejudices get in the way of the obvious facts. People are not obliged to vote in our society if they do not want to, but getting them to register to vote requires a lot of hard work. People need to go out and canvass those homes, door to door. We used to do that in the old days, but we have made cutbacks and stopped doing that. That is what is neededactive campaigning to get people to register to vote.
	We need to bear it in mind that people live in households as individuals and not necessarily with a [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd is harking back to a patrician world where the head of the householdthe father of the familyfilled the form in for everyone. The world is not like that any more. He needs to get up to date.

Clive Betts: The hon. Gentleman talks about campaigning to get people to register, but his political party did not deliver a single leaflet in my constituency during the local elections. Does he accept that a large percentage of the 4 million to 4.5 million people who are not registered are young people? It is an interesting fact that, among young people, the rate of registration decreases as they enter their 20s, primarily because when they live at home the head of the household registers them, whereas when they move out they tend not to register. There is a real problem and until we sort it out, the effect of his amendmentalthough I have some sympathy with it in principlewill be to increase under-registration among young people.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands my point. I was not talking about political parties canvassing, although I think that that is vital to our system. I was talking about council officersthe electoral registration officer and his teamcanvassing door to door to encourage registration. He might not have come across that, but it used to happen: large numbers of people were employed to go out and canvass for registration. I did it myself before becoming politically active.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's other point, part of the reason why people living in student accommodation and others in that age group do not register is that weor the Governmentstubbornly, or perhaps blindly, insist that the head of the household should be responsible for registration, so the authorities send the form only to the first person of whom they are aware living at that address. It may well be that, when the form arrives, it is simply tossed and four of the five people who are sharing the flat never hear anything about it. That is a problem that active canvassingreally going after those people and encouraging registrationcould help to solve. That is why I welcome later amendments in which we insist that electoral registration officers make a real effort.

Gordon Prentice: We have to think laterally. Why can we not positively reward people for going on the electoral register? We could adjust the tax code of people in work, adjust the state pension of retired people, or tweak the benefits of people who receive them. We could give people a lottery ticket for registering. Why can we not do that to encourage people to register?

Oliver Heald: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should work out the details of that suggestion and propose a scheme. We should consider all reasonable options to encourage people to register to vote. I am not sure how the lottery ticket idea would work, but incentivising people to register might be possible.
	We should make a serious effort to get those who are not currently registered on to the register, but we should always bear it in mind that it is wrong to deal with matters such as the size of constituencies based on some back-of-the-envelope calculation of how many people may be entitled to vote in a certain area. The registration system must be what we rely on and I would like it to be much better in our country than it is now. The Government have accepted a requirement for a signature and date of birth for postal voting and it seems to me illogical that they will not go the whole way, especially given that the Bill requires people to sign for their vote at the polling station.
	Door-to-door canvassing is an important part of electoral registration practice, and we need to improve what we do in that respect. I believe that a reason for the decline in the quality of our electoral registration system over the past 20 years is that local authorities have cut back in that respect. Certainly, they have felt squeezed and obliged to deal with other matters. Local authorities need to be able actively to canvass to achieve the best possible result. There is a great deal of disquiet about the potential for electoral fraud. It has grown significantly over the last few years. The Electoral Commission was set up to give independent advice on that issue. The House of Lordsthe other place; not the democratic Chamberhas said that this measure is necessary in the interests of democracy. The Government should not contemptuously ignore the Lords.

Gordon Prentice: I agree with an awful lot of that. There are dozens of MPs in the Commons who have majorities in three figures. I wonder about the integrity of the ballot and I have done for years. I think that there is a huge amount of fiddling and cheating going on. I am disappointed that the Government are resisting Lords amendment No. 8. The Minister drew our attention to some flaws in the amendment: there is no chief electoral officer in Great Britain, although there is in Northern Ireland. It is unfortunate that the Lords did not pick up on that point. I am heartened that she accepts the principle behind individual voter registration. It is clearly just the practicalities that the Government are concerned about, not the principle, which she has conceded. We have an Electoral Commission and its job is to police the electoral system. If it thinks that there is fraud and malpractice, it should blow the whistle and the rest of us should stand to attention when we hear it.

Bob Spink: I thought that I would sit here and agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said, but I disagree with what he said about the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is not there to police; it is there to advise and to set out what the law is. It will not get involved in any way in policing accusations of fraud or questions that have been raised. That is for individual returning officers. The system falls down because there is no way of controlling the actions of an errant, or even corrupt, electoral returning officer. That is where we need to strengthen matters.

Gordon Prentice: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am not an expert in these matters.

Bob Spink: I just wanted to get that point on the record.

Gordon Prentice: I understand that.
	The Electoral Commission takes a view on the electoral system. As I said a few moments ago, if it believes that the system needs improving in some way, it will make recommendations. It made specific recommendations in the case of individual voter registration. The Government have moved towards that in part, but not entirely. I was left reflecting on what the response of the Electoral Commission should be. The Electoral Commission has been turned over by the Government before, when its recommendations have been put to one side. My view is that if the Electoral Commission thinks that this matter is important enough, its members ought to resignor Sam Younger ought to resign. That would make us all pay attention. If members of the Electoral Commission were to resign en masse, there would not be a dozen or two dozen people in the Chamber; it would be packed to the gunnels to discuss the issue.
	The Government's position turns on the whole business of increasing voter turnout. I believe, as I said a few moments ago, that we need to think laterally about that. I would reward people. There is an alternative, put forward by our colleague, Lord Kinnock: compulsory voting. I am not in favour of compulsory voting, but that is one way forward. I prefer to reward people for going on the electoral register and to recognise that they are participating in a civic process, which should be rewarded in some way by the state. That has never been done here, and a lot of people probably think that the idea is zany and a bit eccentric. However, we must consider such solutions if we are to address the point that my friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) constantly makes about the number of young people and people from ethnic minorities and other groups who are not represented on the electoral register.
	I take the point made by the Conservative Front Bench spokesman about international observers. I want international observers to policeif I may use that wordour domestic elections in the United Kingdom, but it is a sad state of affairs that I think that that is necessary.

Oliver Heald: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of international observers, those from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe advised that we should have individual voter registration in this country.

Gordon Prentice: If the Electoral Commission and international observers are recommending that, and given that the Government accept the principle, but will not embrace the system for practical reasons, the argument is made.
	I rely on my own experiences on this matter, as I do on many other issues. At the time of the last general election, my Liberal Democrat opponent, Shazad Anwar, had two sisters and a brother registered at his home in Pendle, although the election literature referred to only Shazad Anwar and his wife, Raisa. We checked the electoral registers for Pendle and next-door Burnley, where Shazad Anwar's father lived. The same two sisters and the brother were also registered in Burnley. Exactly the same thing had happened the year before: two sisters and a brother were registered at Kibble grove in Brierfield and the same two sisters and a brother were registered in Burnley.
	When the matter was drawn to the attention of my Liberal Democrat opponent, he told the  Nelson Leader, just a few days before the general election on 29 April 2005:
	It was a mistake. My father must have returned the Burnley forms without omitting their names. My two sisters and brother live with my wife and I.
	How one can send off a registration form without realising that it records people who do not actually live in a house beats me.
	That situation brings me back to a point made by the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) with which I agree 100 per cent. In the 21st century, we should not be relying on the quaint 19th-century concept of heads of household. It is absolutely absurd in this day and age that we expect one person who is designated as the head of household to certify that other people in the house should be on the electoral register. I am disappointed that the Government and the Minister have taken such a view on Lords amendment No. 8, because we are missing a great opportunity to clean up our electoral system.

Simon Hughes: We are having an important debate that has carried on up and down the corridors of this building since the Bill was introduced. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who is in the Chamber. He started looking after the Bill on behalf of the Liberal Democrats and will continue to help me today as part of his other responsibilities. He and our colleagues at the other end of the building have been extremely diligent in working with Members of other parties to try to ensure that we get this matter andas far as possibleelectoral law right.
	Although I picked up the baton on the Bill, I had an interest in it before and kept a watching brief. I pay tribute to the three Ministers involved in the passage of the Bill, who have been assiduous in ensuring that we all at least understand what we are trying to achieve, even if we sometimes disagree: the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), who is in the Chamber; the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is my neighbour; and Baroness Ashton of Upholland, who looked after the Bill in the Lords.
	The controversial aspect of the group of amendments is the fact that the Government wish to persuade the House to disagree with the Lords in Lords amendment No. 8. I will set down our position immediately. We will vote with those on the Conservative Front Bench and, I anticipate, some Labour Members to uphold what the Lords did when they voted by a majority of 23 for the principle of individual voter registration not just for postal votes, but for other votes as well. My noble Friend Lord Rennard set out why we would do that. We have adopted that as a party policy position and it would be impossible not to support it when it comes before us as a proposition in law. So we will vote to keep the Bill as the Lords amended it and will vote against the Government.
	I understand the issue acutely. I want the hon. Member for Ruabon

Chris Ruane: Vale of Clwyd.

Simon Hughes: Somewhere beautiful up in north Wales, which we all know well.

Chris Ruane: You are supposed to be Welsh.

Simon Hughes: I am indeed, and I have been there often. I just could not remember the latest title of the hon. Gentleman's important constituency.
	I understand the issue that exercises the hon. Gentleman, as it exercised the Minister of State and as it exercises me. There is still something rottennot functioningin the state of electoral registration in Britain and in the state of our democracy. One option is compulsory registration. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) alluded to it, and it is an argument that people have made. I have resisted it. I do not agree with it, and nor do my colleagues. However, even that would not be perfect because we could have compulsory registration in theory, but not everyone who was meant to register would do so. Let us not delude ourselves. It would not mean that every person who was entitled to a vote was registered, let alone voted. In theory, however, we would get a bigger turnout.
	Part of the reason why compulsory registration is not a good system is that it conceals the positive or negative response to the electoral process. Turnout goes up in close or important elections, and we can see that. If politicians are not responding to the electorate well, turnout goes down. In the local elections in our borough of Southwark last month, the turnout varied from something in the order of 25 per cent. in one ward to more than 50 per cent. in another. It depends on local circumstances.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman mentions the local elections last month. He has an enlightened view on maximising electoral registration. What would he say to the leading Liberal Democrat on Islington council who, when asked for his group's support for an electoral registration drive before those elections, said that it would not support it, and that is how it wins elections?

Simon Hughes: I do not know the quote and would want to check it, out of loyalty to my friend. If that is what he said, it is not my view. I am on the record as saying to the Minister of State, across the Floor of the House, that we need much more effective ways of getting people on to the list. I will suggest two.
	I share the view of the hon. Member for Pendle. There is serious merit in considering the idea that we might give somebody a discount on their council tax for being on the electoral register. I take the view, as hon. Members would expect me to, that we have moved on from the patrician days when somebody registers on behalf of the household. We need individual responsibility, with people registering at the age of 18. However, we need to do many other things to get people on the list. First, as people cross the threshold into voting agemy party takes the view that that should be 16, not 18they should be automatically registered from the beginning by the institution, college or school that they attend.
	Secondly, from the moment that they are on the register, there could be an incentive of a discount on council tax. It would be small, but worth having, like the vouchers for computers for schools. Vouchers for small amounts are worth having and we redeem them. I got some in the paper the other day to give me free editions of World cup posters, supplements and so on. It is 40p off and worth having.
	Thirdly, and most importantly, as I have told Ministers before, the only way in which we can achieve a significant increase in annual registration is to conduct an annual campaign. In February, which is usually 28 days long, but is 29 days long every fourth year, we should count down through newspaper, radio and television adverts to democracy day on 1 March. During that period, campaigners sign up voters at bus stops, and outside railway stations, supermarkets, pubs and football grounds in a huge effort to increase registration. Such a campaign should happen regularly because, with the best will in the world, canvassers are never entirely successful in their efforts at registration. When I was in the Minister's constituency on the day of the marathon, canvassers were struggling to find addresses in Blackheath. I remember canvassing in the Northfield by-election and trying hard to find addressesit took me 20 minutes to go round the back of a block of flats, up a ladder and over a roof before I found Nos. 63 to 92 Bristol road south. It is sometimes difficult to find addresses but, when one does so, lots of people are not in, as more and more individuals do not keep conventional hours.

Chris Ruane: They are working, under a Labour Government.

Simon Hughes: Or they are travelling on EasyJet. They are certainly not in, even if they are not working. They may be in bed and not answering the door, because they think that the caller is someone else.
	Trying to encourage people to register is a serious issue. In my constituency, there is a serious problem of under-registration. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) is right, as is the Minister of State, that the poor and less well educated, the young and people from black and minority ethnic communities are usually significantly under-represented.

Gordon Marsden: The hon. Gentleman could add to those under-registered groups people who live in houses in multiple occupation, which are common in my constituency, many other seaside towns and inner-city areas. How will a proposal for individual registration assist efforts to put such people on the register?

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Blackpool is an obvious example, as are many student towns and cities. Hon. Members may not be aware of the fact, but every year in my constituency, which is a couple of miles from the House, a quarter of the electorate move house. They do not all move out of the constituency

Gordon Prentice: They are trying to get away from the hon. Gentleman.

Simon Hughes: In case that is reported in  Hansard, I must explain that they are not doing thatusually, they want to stay and upgrade. About 25 per cent. of people in my constituency move because they want a bigger place or choose to live somewhere else. We must therefore make it easier for them to re-register, and we should not rely on a canvass officer bumping into them on their doorstep, as that does not usually happen. The chance of their being in when the officer comes round so that they can fill in the form is very small indeed.

Andrew Love: The hon. Gentleman appears to be speaking against the proposition that he supports. People are required to return their electoral registration form, but we do not implement that requirement, so compulsion is not the answer. However, to take up the point that he has just made, people who canvass my constituency, where more than 9,000 people are missing from the register, say that, for various reasons, it is increasingly difficult to contact electors. My electoral registration officer says that if individual voter registration is introduced, it will decimate the register. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to accept the fact that the 9,000 people missing from my register will increase to 18,000? I suspect that the increase will be even higher in his constituency.

Simon Hughes: I am sure the numbers are significant, but by definition one does not know what they are. Of course I do not want the number of registered voters reduced. I share the concern about what we should do, and I have suggested various ways of increasing registration.
	The other side of the argument is how we avoid fraud and the abuse of the system. Every year when I look at my electoral register, I know for a fact that names are repeated and that the names of people who have moved or who have died still appear. It is not an up-to-date list that records the position at the beginning of the electoral year. Again, that is more often the case in urban than in rural areas.
	On balance, the argument should be that people must take, and know that they have to take, personal responsibility. The starting point should be that they register either once or annually, and that they register in their own name. The question is whether the proposal that the Lords have passed into law and which is included in the Bill will have a significant downward effect on voting. The fact that the form goes in with the person's signature and date of birth substantially reduces the likelihood of that. If there were no other circumstances, my judgment is that voting would not be affected much, if at all, for the reason given by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and others.
	On any official form people generally expect to sign their name and, although I am not in favour of data being collected unnecessarily, often give their date of birth. For people who have come from the developing world and may not know their date of birth, it is traditional that they give as their date of birth 1 January of the year in which they were born. That convention is generally accepted. There is no problem with people who do not know their specific date of birth, or who have come as refugees and do not have their birth certificates.
	We need to watch closely what happens. The Northern Ireland experience is relevant, but not entirely parallel. We are trying to overcome all the shortcomings and defects with a single piece of legislation. We want a better campaign to recruit people on to the list. We want to give them incentives to go on the list. We want to make it easy for young voters to go on for the first time. We may also want to do one other thing, which is where the difficulty has arisen.
	At present, electoral registration officers have the choice whether to keep somebody on the list at the end of the year or take them off if they cannot check their eligibility. We need a better system to ensure that people can confirm that they are where they used to be, without necessarily having to go through the rigmarole of filling in the form, signing it and providing their date of birth. Suppose someone is away when the form arrives. A business man in my constituency, for example, went to India the other day. He may want to vote, always votes, but was not at home at the time. He needs an easy way of checking whether he is on the list. There is a package of things that we need to do, but we must avoid what most brings the system into disreputefraud and abuse of the system.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman said that he supported the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) of worthwhile incentives for people to register, but he will not want to ignore the significant cost that would be associated with that. Even the worthwhile sum of, say, 10 per registration would mean 750,000 in a typical constituency, and 2 million in a London borough containing two and a half constituencies. Ought that not to be funded centrally, because it is in the national interest that we have the highest level of registration possible?

Simon Hughes: Indeed, or it would be unfair on local authorities with different needs. Areas with the more difficult, the more mobile and the more transient populationsstudent towns, university towns, seaside towns and inner citieswould suffer most.

Gordon Marsden: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Has he not exposed the problem with individual registration in his remarks about electoral registration officers and how they deal with voters who cannot be contacted? He is right to say that some keep them on and some keep them off. We are entirely dependent on the degree of registration and participation, and on the commitment of individual electoral registration officers to the process. Unless the House is prepared to set minimum standards, that situation will be made even worse by individual registration.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome has watched the Bill closely from the beginning, and he says that it will help with that matter. Nobody is pretending that we will get a perfect system after the Bill is enacted, but a lot of the proposals which come from the Electoral Commission, the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission and other places concern that process.
	We should do much better in modern Britain, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire has said. For example, why do we not have lots of people out on the streets in towns such as Blackpool in February, which I have been told is the last month in which it is manageable to conduct such activities in time for a May election? We may not get people to fill in forms at midnight on a Friday, but it is possible to catch them at the bus stop on their way to work. We must try very hard by, for example, visiting FE colleges, guesthouses and businesses. We should also use technology by asking people for their e-mail addresses in order to check annually whether we have got their residential addresses right, which might be more convenient for them.
	We also need to keep the system under review. After next year's local elections in England and the elections in Scotland and Wales, the local elections and London elections in the following year and the European elections across the United Kingdom in the year after thatthere will probably be a general election in that period, toowe should be able to see whether the proposals have had the effect that we all want or whether we are still failing. If we are still failing, we may need to do other things, but we should start from the basis that people should have to start the ball rolling themselves by signing and submitting a form.
	We need to agree a convenient system for keeping people on the register. The process should be led by the customerthe voterrather than by bureaucracy.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in countries in which the register is more accurate such as Australia and, indeed, Northern Ireland, it has not proved necessary to re-examine the register every year, because it is possible to maintain an accurate register by using the methods that he has discussed? Data matching is another way to use technology. A lot of councils have got plenty of information about the people who are not registered, and data matching across the council's information is a useful way to ensure that as many people as possible are registered.

Simon Hughes: There are some dangers down that road. I am always nervous about the Big Brother state collecting information for one purpose before passing it on for another, which is a point that applies to both central Government and local government.

Bob Spink: The important point concerns avoiding fraud in order to maintain and rebuild public confidence in our precious electoral system and democracy. The hon. Gentleman speaks for the Liberal party, but there is cross-party support for the concept that all fraud, particularly where it involves a candidate or agent, should always be investigated by the police and referred to the courts by the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the only way in which we can rebuild confidence in our electoral system in this country, which is sadly lacking at the moment.

Simon Hughes: That is one area in which zero tolerance is appropriate. People should know that if they abuse the system by which we run our democracy, they are at risk of prosecution, conviction and, potentially, serious and exemplary punishment. If the person involved is locally elected or holds office in the community, one would expect an exemplary punishment to be imposed.
	There are currently eight petitions on that point, but that may be the tip of the iceberg, because it is difficult to launch an electoral petition. I am sure that there are many other places in which the electoral register and those who voted did not accurately reflect who turned out on election day.

Andrew Love: There is as much concern about fraud among Labour Members as among any other Members, but certain balancing factors must be taken into account. I want to issue a health warning in relation to the siren voices that use Australia as a comparison, as it has compulsory voting. The situation in Northern Ireland is apposite, because it has a settled population, whereas London does not. If an equivalent decline in the number of people registered in Northern Ireland occurred in a non-settled population such as that of London, that would be catastrophic.

Simon Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman and all of us in urban constituencies well know, we must be realistic about who is sent out to do any of these jobs. I am sure he, like me, knows pretty well at what times the automatic door entry systems open and close, and where to find every address barring those that have just come on to the register. If a couple of people are recruited for a month to carry out the electoral canvass, there is only a small probability of their knowing where all the entrances are and what is the best time to find people in, even with the best advice in the world. We need people who are part of the community and really know what is going on, even though they may have other jobs at other times of the year.
	Another group of people who come into the community with entitlements to vote comprises those who become citizens. We now have citizenship ceremonies. People who are Irish, Commonwealth or European Union citizens with the right to vote here, depending on which kind of election it is, should be given the forms at that moment. If they are not already on the electoral register, they should not leave the town hall until they have been asked to sign up to become part of the electorate. We have to consider every possible proactive way of ensuring that every adult from all our communities who is entitled to vote is on the list.
	The Lords amendment is logical. It has some risks, but those can be compensated for by taking all the other necessary steps. We have a huge shared duty to ensure that we do much better than we have in the recent past.

Chris Ruane: I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) that Labour Members are as concerned as any others about electoral fraud, but we need to get things in perspective. When I tabled parliamentary questions on the number of cases of electoral fraud at local and parliamentary level, I was told that there were one or two a year out of an adult population of 45 million. That is one or two too many. On the other side of the balance, 4.5 million are currently not registered to vote. That is without having put in place any barriers whatsoeverno date of birth, no signature and no national insurance number. Every additional barrier that one puts in front of the registration process will result in additional people not being registered.

Simon Hughes: indicated dissent.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It was proved in Northern Ireland that when barriers were put in place electoral registration dipped, and then it rose to 92 per cent.

Oliver Heald: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Electoral Commission looked at this and found that he is completely wrong. In previous debates, Members from Northern Ireland have explained that the system was subject to fraud in Northern Ireland and that the effect of the changes was to clean up the registers. How can he go on, time after time, saying something that is incorrect?

Chris Ruane: It is correct. Registration in Northern Ireland dipped to a percentage in the low 80s, and after a registration drive it went up to 92 per cent.
	In the UK, with 4.5 million people missing from the register, the figure is 92 per cent., so we are starting from the base that Northern Ireland is currently at. Any additional barriers put in place will reduce that percentage. In Northern Ireland, 92 per cent. is an average. In many of the Belfast seats, which probably include the poorest communities in the whole of the UK, registration is at 70 per cent. In my constituency, the poorest registration area is central Denbigh, at 76 per cent. Some wards in Aberystwyth have 50 per cent. registration. That is completely unacceptable. We need to get those people on to the register. If we start to introduce barriers such as signatures, dates of birth and national insurance numbers, we will keep on adding to the number of people who are unregistered. We might go from 4.5 million to 7.5 million unregistered people, who will be concentrated in the poorest communities in the UK. We do not have a fully functioning democracy if 7.5 million of the most dispossessed people are off the register.

David Heath: We have already established that we all want maximum registration, but I am deeply worried by what Labour Back Benchers are saying. Yesterday, we were told by a Labour Back Bencher that people on council estates had a higher propensity to commit crime; now, the hon. Gentleman is making the deeply patronising assumption that because someone lives in a deprived area, they cannot sign their name in order to get a vote. I do not accept for one moment that that is a barrier, and if he insists that it is, he is basing his entire premise on a fiction.

Chris Ruane: They are not my opinions but those of the Electoral Commission, which is put on a pedestal by the hon. Gentleman. When it carried out detailed research on unregistered peopleits findings were reported last Septemberit found that most unregistered people are unemployed, low-paid, in council housing, black or ethnic, or young. That matches my experience. When I ask for a breakdown of the electoral registration percentages in my wards, I find that the poorest wards are those most affected, and that the poorest streets in those wards have the greatest under-registration. We need to get those people back on to the register. It might suit the political advantage of the Conservatives, or indeed the Liberal Democrats, to keep 7.5 million people off the electoral register

David Heath: Hardly.

Chris Ruane: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remark that I quoted earlier. When one of the leading Liberal councillors on Islington council was asked to support an electoral registration drive before this year's local elections, he said, We will not support itthat's how we win elections.

David Heath: I will not accept that until the hon. Gentleman provides proof. Undoubtedly, people in the most deprived areas are least liable to register, for a variety of reasons. For instance, they often move more frequently because they are more likely to live in houses in multiple occupation. That is a reason to target those areas for increased registration drives, but to say that such people would be inhibited by having to provide a signature is deeply patronising and frankly incorrect.

Chris Ruane: As I said, even without having to provide a signature, date of birth or national insurance number, 4.5 million are not registered, and any additional barrier will increase that number.

David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the core reasons why a substantial number of people are not registered is alienation from the political process, not difficulty in registering, which is simple? If parallel extra effort went into the registration process, would he be happier with the proposal from the other place about incorporating individual registration as an additional barrier?

Chris Ruane: No, I would not be happy with that. I revert to my original point that any additional barrier will lead to greater voter under-registration. It is great if we can have party unity about the Bill, but it is not essential. Our proposal for getting 4.5 million people back on the register should be viewed in the same light as male emancipation in the 19th century and female emancipation in the 20th century. The Bill is in the great tradition of emancipating people and getting them on the register. It should be perceived in that way.
	Some political parties will not want 4.5 million poorer people on the register because it is not in their political interest. That is probably why a leading Liberal Democrat councillor in Islington said what he did. The leader of such a council is on 50,000 a year and cabinet members are on 17,000 to 20,000 a year. Is it in their interests to have 10,000 extra poor people on the register who may not vote Liberal Democrat or Conservative

David Taylor: Who may not vote at all.

Chris Ruane: Indeed.

Gordon Marsden: My hon. Friend, in his description of what happens in constituencies, has brought an air of practical, down-to-earth reality to the implications of the Lords proposal. Does he agree that, in the areas that he describes as deficient in voter registration, there has often not been a great push by local electoral registration officers and that, until we have the minimum standards that have been mentioned, it would be dangerous to follow a suck-it-and-see route only to find, too late, that 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of an already small electorate had been lost?

Chris Ruane: I agree. Local authorities' allocation of resources needs to be examined carefully. I tabled a parliamentary question which asked for the amounts of money spent by each local authority in England on electoral registration to be specified. The answer stated that the figures are not collected centrally. I asked my Labour Assembly colleague in Wales to table the same question. The information is collected centrally in Wales and, of the 22 authorities, lo and behold, those that spent the most per capita on registration had the best registration rates and those that spent least had the worst rates.
	The Bill allocates an extra 17 million of resources to electoral registration. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider the matter carefully, because that extra money has not been ring-fenced but will be given as part of a local government settlement. I believe that, if 17 million of a budget of, for example, 120 billion is not ring-fenced, local authorities, perhaps of a different political persuasion, that have no interest in electoral registration, could cream it off. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary to look into that because registration is not only for local government elections but for European and parliamentary elections. The money should be ring-fenced.
	Some members of political parties throughout the country will try to preserve their positionsas council leaders, cabinet members and so onin a local authority and will not want more poorer people on the register who may threaten their incomes and livelihoods. We need to deal with local authorities that are dogmatic about the matter. When we say, These are our new standards, but they say, We won't obey them, and when we say, Here is the money, but they say, We won't spend it, we need a last resort. We need to tell truculent, politically motivated authorities, We've given you the resources. Here are the new guidelines. If you don't use them, we'll give you one of three options. Because electoral registration is so poor, we'll take the responsibility from you and give it either to a neighbouring authority or to the Electoral Commission, or we'll privatise it. We need to be as blunt as that with local authorities that refuse to implement the proposed legislation.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman's speech has been characterised so far by assertion without evidence. Will he identify those politically motivated local authorities to which he referred?

Chris Ruane: I am looking to the future. I have already mentioned one such authorityIslington, where a leading Liberal Democrat said that he would not support an electoral registration drive because of the way in which the party wins elections. I have therefore given one firm examplethere will be others. However, I am also looking to the future. If we implement the Bill, introduce all the benchmarks and provide additional funding, and a politically motivated local authority pays them no heed because it is not in its political or financial interest to do so, there must be a last resort whereby we can say, We've given you the tools to finish the job. You've refused, so we're taking that responsibility from you.

Simon Hughes: As somebody who represents a larger proportion of council tenants than any other Member of Parliament in England, who has campaigned for better registration, and who had a Labour council that did not do nearly enough but has done more in the past few years, let me say that we could all make party political points, but it is not helpful. A better, non-partisan point would be that local authorities should be given an incentive based on percentage of increase of validly registered electors. That could be reflected in some form of adjusted settlement so that, whatever the party and administration, an incentive exists to do a much better job.

Chris Ruane: Incentives are welcome but as well as a carrot, we need a stick to beat local authorities that refuse to obey legislation that the House has endorsed.
	I oppose Lords amendment No. 8. The Bill is long overdue and will result in getting a good proportion of those 4.5 million citizens back on the electoral register and participating fully in democratic life in this country.

Robert Syms: We have got on to a bit of a rollercoaster with postal voting. Like many hon. Members, when I first became involved in politics I found that we made a fetish of making it almost impossible for people to get a postal vote for an election, because by the time one had got around to trying to register someone, the date had passed.
	I have therefore welcomed the general trend of making it easier for people to obtain postal votes. However, the Government clearly went too fast, in the teeth of opposition by the Electoral Commission. There have been several incidents of fraud, and public confidence has been knocked to the point where one or two people whom I know have been put off voting by post because they feel that the system is not as robust and trusted as it once was. I therefore welcome amendment No. 7 and the Government's acceptance of it, because it is sensible to move to a system whereby people have to give their date of birth and signature.
	I wish to raise some technical points. Under our system, we always involve political parties. As we all know, at the count, several ballots are questionable, and at the end, the returning officer calls the agents or candidates over and they go through the 20, 30, 50 or 100 that are not entirely clear. Although the final decision rests with the returning officer, whether something is counted or not depends on nods and assent from the political parties. The Under-Secretary said in her opening remarks that returning officers would check the ballots against their records and that rejection of ballots would be up to them. I presume that the political parties will still be included in the process.
	At the end of the process of verifying postal votes, the handwriting on some will raise questions,we all receive things through the post that are not entirely clear, and they are put in a pile. If the returning officer intends to reject something, the political parties are included at that point. Of 8,000 postal votes, there may be a genuine concern about the accuracy of a signature on 200 of them. In such cases, I personally would like the agents or the candidates to be involved in the process so that they can see how the returning officer is making decisions. So if there were widespread fraud or concerns about a number of the ballots, the political parties could be very much part of the process of dealing with that, and would not then be surprised if someone jumped up at the end of it to say, I've rejected 1,000 ballots. They would have been able to see the process taking place, which is important.
	It is a pity that the Government will not accept Lords amendment No. 8, because individual registration is the way to go. We have talked in the debate about benefit, and there are benefits involved in being registered. Anyone who goes into Dixon's or Curry's and tries to get credit will know that one of the ways of judging whether they are worthy of getting credit to buy a hi-fi system or a TV is whether their name and address pop up in a search of the electoral register. However, I accept the argument that if we make the registration process more complicated, we might put people off. That is why, if we accepted Lords amendment No. 8, we should also have to have a package of measures to encourage people to register under the new system.
	We have all had experience of electoral registration departments. They are usually underfunded and overworked. They have some very good-quality people working in them, but this issue is hardly the highest priority of most local authorities, which are struggling to deal with money and personnel and consequently have other priorities. One of the most productive things that we, as politicians across the House, could do would be to ensure that registration offices were better funded. Sometimes, when I look at the glossy brochures produced by the Electoral Commission, I think that some of that money would be better spent on registering voters at the sharp end.
	I am attracted to the idea put forward by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). Why not give people some benefit for registering, beyond the one that I have just mentioned with regard to obtaining credit? It could be a lottery ticket, premium bonds or whatever. That could form part of a successful national campaign. It is in the national interest to get people to register.

Gordon Prentice: I have raised this issue with Sam Younger at the Electoral Commissionsome colleagues present tonight were also at that meetingand I think that he is minded to see whether it would be possible to have a pilot to test that idea.

Robert Syms: That would be a useful way of proceeding.
	The suggestions in the Lords amendments on postal votes are sensible, as are their suggestions on ordinary registration for voting. If those proposals were combined with a package of measures to provide people with an incentive to register, and if investment went into electoral registration, we could all support that.
	Houses in multiple occupation were mentioned earlier, and we know that when polling cards are delivered to a building containing 40 or 50 flats and end up in the postal area in the basement, there are occasions on which they disappear. People then turn up at the polling station to discover that someone else has voted in their place.
	I agree with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that these proposals are not a panacea, but they represent a small step forward. They will make those who want to commit fraud think again, because they will slightly increase the prospect of their getting caught and prosecuted. In particular, a system of registration for ordinary voters that involved the checking of a person's date of birth in the polling station would provide a much better chance of catching people who are voting when they should not be. That would add integrity to the process. It would be a step forward, and it is a pity that the Government are not going to accept Lords amendment No. 8. That proposal, combined with the package of measures that Members on both sides accept would be necessary to implement it, would create a better and more robust system.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman made the point that electoral registration officers need the necessary resources to do their job effectively, and that they must not be prey to the whims of their political masters in county or city halls. The Bill will achieve that objective by placing clear duties on electoral registration officers and providing a clear requirement for them to have the necessary funding to perform their duties. There are also reserve powers in the Bill to ensure that that requirement is consistently applied across the country. So we can be assured that the situation will improve if the Bill is passed into law.

Robert Syms: We can all welcome that. We are making progress. There will be some votes this evening, as we do not agree on everything, but in electoral terms, we are going in the right direction. Lords amendment No. 7 would certainly help people to feel better about the integrity of the postal voting system. It is a pity that Lords amendment No. 8 will not be accepted, but I suspect that this argument will run and run.

Clive Betts: In many senses, this amendment goes to the heart of a real dilemma. There is general agreement on both sides of the House about where we want to get to on these issues. In principle, everyone is in favour of a safer and more secure voting system and, they say, of a higher level of voter registration. The fundamental problem is how we achieve that. I am not accusing Conservative Members of wanting under-registration. Equally, I hope that they will not accuse Labour Members who vote with the Government on this issue of being complacent or of wanting to see voter fraud continue.
	We need to identify the fundamental problem with our electoral registration system. From all the data that we havethanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane)we can conclude that the scale of under-registration is the fundamental problem. There are 4.5 million people who ought to be on our electoral registers but who are not. Given that attempts to improve that situation are at the heart of the Bill, we must think very carefully about any proposals that would make it worse, and probably draw back from them at this stage.

Julian Lewis: Everyone agrees with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that there should be no question of bringing in measures that would result in real people disappearing from a register. Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that although the introduction of certain measures to cut out fraud would result in a reduction of the number of people on a register, they would not be real people? They would be bogus people, and bogus people cannot make up for real people who are not registering.

Clive Betts: Obviously, I am not in favour of bogus people being on any register. However, I am concerned that the present system allows for a massive amount of under-registration of real people, and that even more people might not register if we pursue the issue of personal identifiers and personal individual registration in the present circumstances. I want to see the most secure voting system possible, and I am in favour in principle of individual registration. I want us to get there in due course, but I want that to happen at a time when the level of registration is much higher, when more of the real people who are currently missing from the register are on it.
	We can all go out and see, sometimes in local authorities of our own political persuasion, that the effort put into electoral registration amounts only to sending out two forms to households. In many cases, the forms do not get returned, but the system then gives up on those individuals. There are local authorities across the country that do not think that this is a priority. They do not put money into it, and most councillors are not awfully interested. All right, they have other things to dothey have education and social services systems to run and the environment to look after. Those are very big issues. The councillors concerned get lots of letters from their constituents about them, and they quite rightly respond to them.
	Electoral registration often comes quite far down the list and, provided that there is no specific requirement for it to be put on the agenda and for electoral registration officers to carry out specific duties that can be monitored and scrutinised by the local council and the Electoral Commission, we shall continue to have the system that we have today. I accept that the Bill takes us forward in regard to trying to get the levels of registration up.
	I hope that the Minister will give us reassurance on a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd. If we are putting extra money into the system, how can we be sure that it will be spent on the system? Some local authorities will take the grant and use it for other purposes. How can we be sure that the 17 millionand there will be questions as to whether that is enoughis spent on improving the system?
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their concern whether, even if we improve the level of canvassing, it will really catch the people whom we are worried about, who do not fill in or send back the forms. It is that much harder when we are dealing with people living in houses in multiple occupation.

Chris Ruane: On targeting people who are the most difficult to get to register, will my hon. Friend reflect on a suggestion from Wales? Public or voluntary bodies that target socially excluded people on council estates, such as black and ethnic minorities or people on low pay, could ask, And how about registration? while carrying out their other work. Different bodies that are already active and have gained the trust of people in the community could also help with registration.

Clive Betts: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Electoral registration officers should be imaginative in how they go about encouraging registration. Let us increase the canvass as well, although that will not do anything like 100 per cent. of the job. We have to deal with trying to get data and information from other sources, and that is in the Bill. When the data protection people gave evidence to the Select Committee hearings, they were not worried about cross-matching data provided that it was clear from the initial collection what purpose it would be used forthat is the issue.
	There is a genuine concern not only that electoral registration officers are not currently cross-matching data to which they have access within the local authority, but that they may need to access data outside the authority. In some cases, local authorities wanting to obtain data on young people becoming 18 can go to their own schools. In my constituency, most young people becoming 18 are based in the college, which is outside the local authority, rather than a school within it. How can we stop the problem of bias in the system, which means that data can be captured in some authorities but not in others?
	Stock transfers of houses are another problem. Local authorities can access data on their own council tenants before such a transfer, but I am not sure whether they can afterwards. I do not know, but the question has to be answered. Housing associations are sometimes set up to take over stock transfer properties and they take over documentation and data about tenants with them. Those are the sort of problems that have to be dealt with. How can we ensure that access to data and cross-matching goes wider than the local authority, into the rest of the public sector and probably outside it into organisations such as the utilities and the Post Office?
	I now come to the crucial point. I believe that the Bill is a halfway house in a number of senses. Eventually, we want to get to individual registration, but we want to do so with a much fuller registration system in which we can be certain of getting the registration percentage into the higher 90s just like the Australians, who reach 98 per cent. They do not rely on canvassing as the primary means of drawing up the register; rather, they rely on data from a range of sources. They rely on the utilities, postal services, local authorities and other bodies to give information to electoral registration officersin Australia there is an electoral commission for each state. All the information from those bodies is used to establish when people have moved in or out of properties, when people have become 18 or died and so forth. They check whether the information is correct and draw up the data on that basis.
	The Australians ask why, in this country, we bother with annual registration when we get forms back, by and large, from people who have lived in a property for 20 years, rather than capturing data from people who change their property regularly, sometimes annually, particularly in the private rented sector. The Australians concentrate on households where the information has changed from one year to the next. They follow that up closely and ensure that it benefits the registration process. Better use is made of registration officers' time because their efforts are spread throughout the year rather than for three or four months with little concentration of effort for the rest of the year.
	We have a lopsided system that, to use the currently in-vogue jargon, is not fit for purpose. The Bill is a great step forward in giving more powers and responsibilities to electoral registration officers, but it takes us only part of the way there. I would like us to think about consulting on a new Bill, perhaps in three or four years' time, which deals with how best to move towards the Australian system, while tightening up the security of the voting system by taking individual registration into account.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has outlined some very good ideas, but I hope that he accepts that there are good things that electoral officers and their teams could do now. Forms could be placed with estate agents or solicitors who do the conveyancing or sent out with Inland Revenue or social security material, or sent with all the other items delivered through our letterboxes. It just requires some lateral thinking about how to reach people as they move, arrive or connect in various ways with the authorities.

Clive Betts: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. I am all in favour of every imaginative way possible to try to improve registration and put registration forms in front of people, but we must consider the fact that we are trying to improve a system that is not the best fundamental system for registration purposes.

Jim Cousins: Will my hon. Friend consider the situation in my constituency, where 6,000 voters in purpose-built student accommodation are block registered by their landlords, who never consult the students concerned? This year, the registrar of the university of Newcastle refused, on data protection grounds, to register 3,000 students in their own accommodation. The electoral registration officers, seeing 3,000 voters disappearing off the register, prevailed on him to block register the students again. At no stage in the process was a single student consulted about whether he or she wanted to be on the register.

Clive Betts: The reality is, of course, that there is a legal requirement for people to register, so I am not sure whether consulting people on whether they want to register is the legal position. I am in favour of universities co-operating in the business of registration. In some cities, one university co-operates and another does not. That creates an imbalance in the figures. I am in favour of electoral registration officers being able to gain access to information from universities. Co-operating in a process that involves a legal requirement to register should be encouraged. Electoral registration officers should have access to that information, and universities and others ought to have a responsibility to provide it.
	I am sure that my final point will not receive any agreement from Opposition Members. We can make improvements with the Bill, but not necessarily reach the ideal position. When we come to the further Bill, which I hope will come about in three or four years' time, we will be developing a form of registration that will be ideal for the purposeit goes with the creation of the identity card scheme. That will eventually provide the basis on which we can create an accurate register [ Interruption. ] If Opposition Members are concerned about voter fraud and people trying to register twice or three times, they should consider the fact that a national identity card register, with only one identity for every individual, is a sure-fire way to get 99.9 per cent. registration on the most secure basis possible. I hope that Opposition Members will eventually understand that point.

John Horam: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) latterly proposed, perhaps not wholly seriously, a rather imaginative idea for advancing his cause. I agreed with much of his speech, frankly, especially on the need to improve our data, and he has some imaginative ideas about how to do so. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made similar points in saying that many people are not on the electoral register.
	I understand where Labour Members are coming from, but do they not recognise that, in effect, we politicians are bound, to some extent, to be biased on this issue one way or another. My hon. Friends and I are perhaps more concerned about fraud; Labour Members are perhaps more concerned about under-representation. However, the fact is that the Government contracted out such things to the Electoral Commission, which is an independent body, and it came up with a view of how we should look at our electoral system. It made suggestions and recommendationsfor example, on individual registration and using personal identifiers on a larger scaleand the Government were willing to accept them.
	The Government found a way out of such problems by using an independently established body, which can take an objective view. That body has existed for five or six years. The problem with the proposals from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe is that, once again, they kick things further and further into the future. Do we want to go on for ever trying to improve or change what we have got? Are we no longer prepared to listen to a perfectly respectable independent body, which the Government set up? It seems a great pity that the Government are not prepared to accept its advice and suggestions.

Bridget Prentice: This has been an excellent debate, which, as expected, has reflected the strong views held on both sides of the House.
	On the question of fraud, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) mentioned yet again the judge who referred to our system as being like that of a banana republic. I remind him that that unfortunate and terrible phrase was used about the situation before 2004, and a number of measures have been put in place since then. On the whole, therefore, the elections this year reflect that we have tightened up on the abuses that took place in Birmingham.
	I hope that every Member of the House believes in zero tolerance in response to anyone who abuses the system through fraudulent registration or voting. That is why the Bill increases the penalties for such behaviour. Several Members referred earlier to the registration form being sent to the head of household. In fact, it is not sent to the head of householdwe do not use such Victorian termsbut to the occupier.
	On the issue of fraud versus the register, which seemed to be a theme throughout the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) referred to petitions. At present, eight petitions are before the courts, four of which are about election fraud, while the other four are about other election issues. The Coventry petition relates to about 10 electors, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd rightly pointed out, should be compared with the 3.5 million to 4 million people who are not on the register. Therefore, while we all agree that fraud is bad and dangerous, we should look at it from the perspective of the number of elections that took place this year, the number of people involved in those elections, and the fact that a huge number of people are not yet on the register. That is why we have approached the issue as we have done. We have tried to be proportionate and to strike a balance, which is why we have accepted the Lords amendments on identifiers for postal votes.
	I agreed with virtually everything that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, apart from his comments about personal identifiers. As he and I represent inner-London seats, we know exactly the problems that people face in getting on the register. It is not a case, as his hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, of being patronising about those living on council estates or in houses in multiple occupation, the unemployed, young people and black and ethnic minorities. Their disfranchisement, as we know, relates not just to the register but to a variety of issues, and their disfranchisement from the register arises in a sense from all of those. It is therefore important that we try to get those people on to the register, as well as doing all the other things on the Government's social exclusion agenda.

David Heath: To correct the record, I made it absolutely plain that it was not remotely patronising to point out that such groups are under-registered and that there is a real need to address that under-registration. I said that it was patronising to suggest that asking those particular people for a signature would significantly deter them from voting, whereas it would not deter the rest of the population. I hold to that view.

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, entitled to his view, and I think that he is wrong.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey made several positive points about the variety of ways in which we can and should encourage people to vote. I agree with the idea of a democracy day. I hope that after the Bill is passed by the House and the other place, we can engage in some cross-party lateral thinking about the creative methods that can be used to get people to register and to participate actively in citizenship.
	On data sharing, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) is right that returning officers already have at their disposal a huge variety of ways of using that. Sadly, a number of them do not take advantage of those. Perhaps obstacles are put in their way by other organisations that could be more positive. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey alluded to a possible role for estate agents, solicitors' offices and so on. Of course, when people move into an area and register for council tax, there is no reason whatever why the local authority should not send out a registration form with its council tax bill.
	On the issue of the canvass, the Bill includes measures on physical canvassing. I suspect that I am no different from many Members in that when the canvasser comes around, I am not inI might be out canvassing myself. In the 15 years that I have lived in my current house, I have only been in once when a canvasser has knocked on the door, on a Sunday afternoon. My local authority allows me to register by telephone, which is another way in which people can ensure that they are on the register.
	On funding, I had a lot of sympathy with what several colleagues said. We have been relatively generous in relation to fundingaround 21 million will be provided to cover the costs of the Bill. All the returning officers and electoral administrators with whom I have had conversations feel that that money, if it reaches them, would cover their costs. The funding is not ring-fenced, however, and they are aware, like a number of my colleagues, that local authorities sometimes use the money for other items. As has been pointed out, the Bill also introduces performance standards that will be overseen by the Electoral Commission. We will also ask for accounts showing the amount of money spent on the election process. I hope that those measures will help to counter any temptation by local authorities to spend the money on something other than electoral registration and so on.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) was concerned about errant returning officers. The Representation of the People Acts include provisions to prosecute returning officers if they breach their duty. As I said, the Bill also includes performance standards, which will be set by the Electoral Commission. That will help to improve the standard of electoral administration.
	The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who made a thoughtful speech, asked about the verification of postal votes. I assure him that candidates can be present at the checking of disputed postal votes. Details of that will be included in the regulations. He also welcomed the fact that the Government are moving in the right direction, as did a number of other colleagues. That is truethe Bill moves us forward both by tightening up the system to counter any possibility of fraud and by tackling under-representation in this country. I hope that Members will support the Bill in that respect.

Simon Hughes: I realise that the Minister is approaching the end of her speech, but may I ask her to consult on another matter? People become very frustrated when, having turned up at a polling station, they discover that they are not on the register. At that moment, they ought to be given a form and asked to fill it in and leave it there, or at least given a form to take away. If we could make people's bad experiences at polling stations far less frequent, gradually over the years there would be a more positive response from those who currently feel that they are not wanted.

Bridget Prentice: Again, the hon. Gentleman has made an important point. I hope that, in further discussions with the Electoral Commission and in cross-party discussions, we shall be able to consider the practicality of some of his proposals. I believe that we should make it as easy as possible for people who should be on the register to be on it. That meansin the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)thinking laterally. Perhaps there should be incentives; who knows?
	I reiterate that the Government do not feel ready, at this stage, to accept personal identifiers across the board. We do think that they are appropriate for postal votes, and I therefore commend the Lords amendments on postal vote identifiers, which received cross-party consensus. I hope that we can make progress on the rest of the Bill in a consensual way, but I ask Members to reject Lords amendment No 8 when it is put to the House.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendment: No. 8.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment. [Bridget Prentice.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 202.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Lords amendment disagreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 49
	  
	Political Party Descriptions

Lords amendment: No. 61.

Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 62 to 75, 103, 110 to 122, and 126 to 129.

Bridget Prentice: Amendments Nos. 61 to 63 were introduced following pressure from both Houses for an increase in the number of descriptions that a party can register with the Electoral Commission. The original number was five, which was the number recommended by the Electoral Commission. That would allow, for example, one description for each of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and one for the United Kingdom as a whole. The Liberal Democrats introduced the amendments in another place. They sought to increase the number of descriptions to 12 because that equals the number of nations and regions in the United Kingdom, and so that parties could register descriptions such as London Liberal Democrats, East Anglian Conservatives, or Yorkshire and Humberside Labour. I therefore recommend that the House accept those amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 64 to 72 fulfil the commitment made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on Third Reading in this House. Members may recall that amendments moved then became clause 59, and that they removed the need for duplication in reporting of donations, but for MPs only.
	By way of brief background, schedule 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 sets out, among other things, the requirement that holders of elective office should report the donations that they have received to the Electoral Commission, which then publishes them. That has the effect that MPs, MEPs, Members of devolved Administrations and local councillors throughout the UK have to report donations both to the Electoral Commission and to the relevant register of members' interests of the body of which they are a member. The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, chaired by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young)to whom I express my gratitude for his help in this matterexpressed concern about the duplication, referring to it in a report published on 20 July 2005.
	Lords amendments Nos. 64 to 72 remove the requirement of dual reporting for holders of relevant elective office. That means that holders of the relevant elected office would not have to report any donations received to the Electoral Commission, whether the donations were received in their role as the relevant elected officer or in their role as a member of a registered political party. Of course, as with the provisions already included in clause 58, the Electoral Commission will retain the obligation to record any details it receives from the relevant registers of members' interests. The commission will continue to supervise compliance with the regulatory system as set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
	The House should note that this provision can be commenced only once the Electoral Commission is content that the relevant authorities have arrangements in place to ensure that the commission is still able to maintain an accurate register. I hope that hon. Members will see that as an appropriate balance between requiring transparency and removing bureaucratic duplication. The amendments are supported by the Electoral Commission, as well as relevant bodies, including the Scottish Executive and the Standards Board for England.
	Lords amendments Nos. 73 to 75, 103, 110 to 122 and 126 to 129, on the reporting regime for loans, fulfil the commitment that I made to the House on 20 March that the Government would table amendments to the Bill to make it compulsory for political parties to disclose any loans that they receive. There are issues relating to the funding of political parties that go beyond the disclosure of loans and the review by Sir Hayden Phillips will deal with those. We have tabled these amendments now because there is broad agreement between the political parties and the Electoral Commission as to what should be done. This Bill presented us with an opportunity to act immediately in seeking to deliver the same openness for loans as currently exists for donations. I was heartened by the consensus on the principles of seeking to achieve greater openness and transparency in relation to significant loans afforded to political parties, individual members, members associations and holders of relevant elective office.
	The amendments take the form of a new part 4A of, and schedule 6A to, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000PPERA.

David Winnick: The position on loans was a glaring loophole for which we are all responsible, not only the Government. It should have been recognised at the time, but all Labour Members are very pleased that it will at last be closed.

Bridget Prentice: My hon. Friend is right. All hon. Members need to take some responsibility for this, and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire recognised that on behalf of the Standards and Privileges Committee. That is one reason why we have had such openness and consensus on the issue.
	Part 4 of and schedule 6 to PPERA provide a system for the regulation of donations to political parties. That regime requires all donations over 5,000 to a political party to be reported to the Electoral Commission, and ensures that donations can be made only by individuals or organisations with a sufficient connection to the United Kingdom. It has been accepted that those requirements have brought transparency and openness to the making of donations, which is why we have chosen the same regime for loans. Indeed the new provisions deviate from the requirements for donations only where necessary to reflect the difference between a loan and a donation. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it makes sense to build on the success of the existing regime to try to achieve the same level of openness regarding loans.
	Before coming to the more detailed aspects of the regime as set out in the new sections and schedule, it might be useful to remind the House of the four main features. First, the reporting requirement is triggered when a loan exceeds the initial reporting threshold of 5,000 or the subsequent reporting threshold of 1,000. Such loans, whether made on commercial or less than commercial terms, will have to be reported to the Electoral Commission. That will be at quarterly intervals, and at weekly intervals during a general election period. Secondly, all loans extant on the day that the provisions come into force would have to be disclosed, and any taken out thereafter. Thirdly, a party would be permitted to take out a loan only from the same sources from which it is permitted to receive donations, although existing loans will not be subject to that permissibility requirement. Fourthly, the regime would cover not only loans, but all credit facilities and the provision by third parties of guarantees and securities.
	On 20 March, the Lord Chancellor wrote to all the parties represented at Westminster and he has since held meetings with many of them. Each has shared our concern that we should act quickly and recognised that a scheme similar to that now well established for donations would be a proportionate response to the need for transparency. We have also taken the views of Sam Younger, chairman of the Electoral Commission, who has welcomed the proposals, and consulted the British Banking Association.

Andrew Turner: I appreciate, as I am sure do hon. Members on both sides of the House, the efforts that have been made to secure consensus on this point. Is there anything to prohibit foreign nationals or others making large donations to campaigning organisations that are not registered as political parties, such as the Countryside Alliance or the League Against Cruel Sports?

Bridget Prentice: I will come to that issue shortly. We need to address concerns about third parties

Peter Bone: Am I to understand from what the Minister has said that, if an organisation had a temporary overdraft in excess of 5,000, it would have to be reported?

Bridget Prentice: If a loan already exists and is ongoing, it will not have to be reported, but any loan made subsequently will be reported. I will cover issues such as capitalisation later. It is a complex and technical part of the Bill, but I hope that I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question as I continue.
	The scope of the regime is not merely restricted to straightforward loans. The regime also includes credit facilities, such as overdrafts, and arrangements where a third party offers a guarantee or security in respect of the liabilities of a political party. If security agreements were not included in the new regime, a wealthy backer could offer guarantees to all of a party's commercial suppliers, and enable the party to obtain anything that it might need at any given time, even though the party's own credit rating would mean that it could not otherwise do so.
	One of the key issues in deciding whether a regulated transaction has to be disclosed will be its value. Disclosure will not be required for loans of 5,000 or under, unless the combined lending from the same authorised participant exceeds 5,000 during the course of a reporting year, and the regime does not apply at all to loans of 200 or under.
	New section 71G specifies that the value of a loan is the total amount to be lentthat is, the interest charged is not included. For a credit facility, the valuation is the maximum amount that may be borrowed under the arrangement. For an arrangement involving any form of security, it will be the contingent liability assumed by the person who gives the security.
	A question arose in the other place about loans that contain capitalisation provisionsthat is, a facility for outstanding interest to be rolled up into the total sum of the loan. These amendments provide that, where a regulated transaction provides for capitalisation at the outset, the potential for capitalisation is not considered in the valuation of a loan. That would be a matter of particular importance in the case of loans whose face value is just below the reporting threshold and which contain capitalisation provisions that might cause the initial value of the loan to exceed the reporting threshold.
	We have intentionally steered away from imposing on political parties the rather inexact science of having to ascertain whether capitalisation provisions might cause a loan to cross the reporting threshold. However, where the face value of the loan crosses the reporting requirement, the existence of capitalisation provisions would have to be recorded in the report to the Electoral Commission. We believe that that approach strikes the right balance between practicability and transparency.
	Proposed new section 71H deals with the important question of permissibility. We believe that, as happens with donations, a lender should be either an individual whose name is on the electoral roll or an organisation with a sufficient connection to the UK. Proposed new section 71H prevents a party from entering into a regulated transaction with anyone other than authorised participants, the latter being defined by reference to the existing list of permissible donors in section 54(2) of PPERA. The restriction will not apply to regulated transactions entered into before the new provision commences.
	The permissibility requirement is enforced by a range of criminal offences. For example, when a party takes out loans with unauthorised participants, the party and its treasurer may commit criminal offences.

Angus MacNeil: The UK link is one thing, but should not the Bill ensure that there are no links between political parties and seats in the upper House of Parliament?

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), was invited to meet the Lord Chancellor and put his views on that matter, which he did robustly. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about not having representation in the other place, but I am not the person with whom he needs to raise that matter. However, I can reassure him that his hon. Friend put his case to the Lord Chancellor very forcefully.

Angus MacNeil: My point is not about my party having representation in the House of Lords. It is about installing a mechanism to ensure that Parliament is beyond reproach with loans and donations to political parties, and that the people who make that money available do not find themselves in the House of Lords soon afterwards.

Bridget Prentice: I hope that the amendments from the other place will reassure the hon. Gentleman. As far as possible, we have tried to duplicate the donations regime and apply it to loans, although I have set out the technical reasons for any differences. The amendments should reassure hon. Members and the public that the process will be transparent, and that a robust reporting regime will apply.
	As I said, those who do not follow the rules set out in the Bill could be found guilty of criminal offences. We have also made provision to ensure that, where a party has entered into a regulated transaction with an unauthorised participant, it should be required to repay the moneys or benefits that it derives from the transaction as soon as they come to light.
	If the party refuses to repay the loan, a broad power is conferred on the courts, exercisable on application by the Electoral Commission, to restore the parties to the position that they were in before the transaction was entered into, if that is possible. That mirrors a similar provision of PPERA that allows the Electoral Commission to apply to the court for the forfeiture of impermissible donations. The same principles will apply in the case of a guarantee or security given by an unauthorised participant, again with some necessary adjustments.
	I turn now to the reporting requirements, which follow the same structure as those for donations. Proposed new section 71M requires regulated transactions to be reported on a quarterly basis to the Electoral Commission. The requirement to report a regulated transaction is triggered when the value of that transaction exceeds 5,000either in its own right, or taken together with the value of other transactions with the same authorised participant. Thereafter, transactions exceeding 1,000 with the same participant must be reported.
	What happens where a person makes a loan of 5,000 and a donation of 5,000? The principle that we have adopted is that any combination of loans and donations that exceed the reporting requirements of 5,000 and 1,000 should be disclosed. The approach that we have taken is that it should not matter whether a donation, a regulated transaction, or a combination of donations and regulated transactions, is made. If the aggregate value of any combination of relevant benefits exceeds the initial reporting threshold of 5,000 or the subsequent reporting threshold of 1,000, then the requirement to report is triggered.
	Weekly reports are required in the period immediately before general elections, just as happens with donations. The Electoral Commission will maintain a register of regulated transactions so reported, and it will be made available to the public.

Angus MacNeil: Is there anything in the amendments that would have prevented the recent scandals and the subsequent involvement of the Metropolitan police, or are we back where we were a few months ago?

Bridget Prentice: As I have said, the events of a few months ago showed that we needed transparency. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) pointed out that there was a loophole that no one in this House recognised. Our discussions with the various parties represented here have led us to come up with what we think are sensible, coherent and transparent proposals. I shall not comment on any Metropolitan police investigation that may be under way, but I believe that the amendments will reassure the House and the general public about how political parties will be funded.

Andrew Turner: The Minister said that no one in this House recognised the loophole that existed. Does that mean that the then chairman of the Labour party and the Prime Ministeras well as Lord Levy, who I accept is not a Member of this Housedid not recognise the loophole?

Bridget Prentice: As I said in my statement of 20 Marchand I have said it again at least twice this eveningno one was aware that the donations regime did not apply in the same way to loans. The result was that loans were not as transparent as donations. We are rectifying that now. Everyone in this House recognises that the new regime should apply to every party in this House and that we all have to take some responsibility for making the position as transparent as possible.
	The particulars that need to be reported about regulated transactions will be different. We think that transparency requires that the principal features of the transaction should be required to be reported and disclosed to the public. New schedule 6A requires the identity of the participants to be reported, as well as the nature and value of the transaction, details of the rate of interest, if any, to be paid on any sums lent, the length of the loan, and other particulars. Provision is made for the particulars to be varied should it become apparent that transparency requires different or additional matters to be reported about regulated transactions.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Minister give way?

Bridget Prentice: I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman, but if he repeats the questions that he has asked already, I doubt that I shall be able to help him any further.

Angus MacNeil: The Minister refers to loopholes, but is not the biggest loophole of all still wide openthe one that allows someone to give a substantial amount of money to a political party and then to pass through that very loophole into the legislature, this Parliament?

Bridget Prentice: Let me make it absolutely clear that no one who gives money to a political party is given some sort of favour, either in this House or in the other place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. I am disappointed that he does not understand that no one who has supported a political party, whether my party, the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats, should be accused in the House of such behaviour.

Angus MacNeil: rose

Bridget Prentice: I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. I have made my position clear.

Peter Bone: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Bridget Prentice: If I can make a little progress, I shall deal with the question of third-party loans.
	The other major difference that requires a different approach is the continuing nature of a regulated transaction. Because regulated transactions involve an ongoing relationship, it is necessary to require the reporting of variations in the terms of the transaction. We have done that in new section 71N. Whenever one of the particulars that are required initially to be reported about a regulated transaction is varied, the party is obliged to record the change in the next transaction report. We believe that that will ensure proper transparency. Otherwise, regulated transactions could, for example, be varied to permit the making of further advances or be put on a zero-interest basis in a way that would not be apparent. We have also imposed a requirement to report when a regulated transaction finally comes to an end.
	As for third-party loans, third parties are already covered during a general election and we have an order-making power in the Bill to deal with third-party loans and donations outside that period. I hope that that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) is satisfied that such matters are covered by the amendments.

Peter Bone: Given the Minister's earlier comments, I wanted to point out that the House should not give the impression that someone who gives money to a political party should be barred from going to the other place. That, too, would be wrong.
	We want transparency. Does the hon. Lady agree that, if we are not careful, soft money or issue money could be lent or given, which would have the same effect, but would not have to be declared?

Bridget Prentice: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman that someone who donates to a political party should not as a result be barred from being in the other House. That would clearly be nonsense. People have the right to express their political views in their own way and there is no bar on appointing a donor to the other place. People are appointed to the other place on merit. I hope that hon. Members in this place accept that.  [ Interruption. ] Noises off from the Liberal Democrats ought to be kept a lot quieter, given their own situation. They have no right to pretend to be any better than any other party in the House in dealing with these matters.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned his concern about soft money, which is something that we have to look at. Later, I shall speak about issues relating to candidates' expenses, where such money sometimes appears. We have views on how we might make progress in that respect.
	The new regime will apply not only to the political parties, but to individual members of political parties, their associations and holders of relevant elective office. The amendments also make provision for an order-making power to extend the loans regime to third parties during national election campaigns, permitted participants at referendums and election candidates in parliamentary, local government and London assembly elections. An order-making power to extend the loans regime to Gibraltar during European elections has also been provided for, mirroring once again the approach taken in respect of donations.
	We have also considered in the amendments the most appropriate means of extending the provisions to Northern Ireland. The House will know that the donations regime has been disapplied in Northern Ireland since 2000 by orders made under PPERA. However, the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that has recently been debated in this place and is now before the House of Lords contains provisions that mean that the disapplication of the regime will expire on 31 October 2007. Thereafter, the donations regime will apply in Northern Ireland, with both temporary and permanent modifications. An order-making power will allow the loans regime to be modified as it applies in Northern Ireland in a way that allows it to mirror the approach to be adopted in relation to donations as provided for in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
	The measures also bring about a number of consequential amendments to PPERA to reflect the introduction of the new regime for regulated transactions and to tie the two regimes together. The changes include an amendment to section 3 of PPERA so that those people who have made loans to political parties are excluded from being eligible to be electoral commissioners, reflecting the regime that currently applies to donations. Similarly, the amendments establish that an electoral commissioner shall cease to hold office if he is named as a participant in the register of recordable transactionsthat is, if he gives a loan or other donation to a political party.
	In accordance with the commitment that I gave the House 20 March, the amendments represent a comprehensive package of measures to make it compulsory for political parties to disclose any loans that they receive. Our intention has been to achieve as great a transparency for loans made to political parties as applies to donations. We believe that the measures now provide a robust and workable framework to ensure greater transparency in respect of significant financial benefits afforded to political parties, members of political parties and holders of relevant elective office. I commend them to the House.

Oliver Heald: Openness and transparency are important. If someone makes what amounts to a gift to a political party, or even improves its financial position, that should be known. If it is not known that a person has given a large amount of money or other substantial financial benefit to a political party and that person then becomes a peer, there will be grounds for suspicion about why that has happened. I shall say nothing about the circumstances that brought the subject to light recently, but it is a fair principle that when people give money or other financial benefits to political parties, that should be known when the sums involved are substantial.

David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman was in no way responsible, so my question is not personal, but why was there no disclosure prior to 1997? When the Committee on Standards in Public Lifeoriginally known as the Nolan Committeewas set up, John Major made it perfectly clear that political donations and contributions would be excluded from its remit.

Oliver Heald: As I think the hon. Gentleman would agree, that was a different era. We all accept things now that we might not have accepted years ago. I am sure that that is true for him as much as it is for me.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: Let me just make a bit of progress.
	The point that I was going to make is that, from the moment that this issue became importantin recent monthswe have co-operated fully with the Government and we agree with the proposals that the Government outlined in the other place and again this evening. We are also contributing to the Phillips review, which we welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has put forward what we call a green paper, which sets out a whole range of protections that would take matters forward.
	It is true that when the legislation was going through the House in 1999 and 2000, following the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, it was thought that an element of giving or providing a financial advantage to a political party should be the trigger for reporting. It was thought that it was reasonable to exempt loans on commercial terms because they were commercial transactions, where a profit was to be made by the company. There was not that element of a gift or donation. However, as we know, that has turned out to be something of a grey area and so we accept that the law should be changed. We welcome the various proposals that the Minister has outlined and we will support them today.

David Heath: I broadly welcome the amendments in this group. I am a little disappointed that the Leader of the House is not here, because this area is specifically one of his responsibilities. That is one of the reasons why I retain responsibility from the Liberal Democrat Benches for the issue. However, he is not here. No doubt we will have an opportunity to discuss the matter with him in the future.
	May I deal first with amendments Nos. 61 to 63, which were moved in another place by Lord Goodhart? This is a perfectly sensible compromiseor a proportionate response to what had become an issue. The figure 12 was not simply plucked out of the air. It accords with the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and enables the political parties to describe themselves as they wish and as they feel is appropriate. The previous figure of five was arbitrary and was perhaps over-restrictive. I am grateful to the Government for recognising that there was some strength in that argument and for accepting the fact that what was proposed was a sensible move.
	I also entirely welcome amendments Nos. 64 to 72, which build on the point that I originally made on Second Reading about the dual reporting procedure that applied to Members of this House. That gave rise to inconsistencies and additional bureaucracyto no end in terms of better transparency or regularity. The Government accepted the principle and I share the Minister's view that a critical part of that process involved the deliberations of the Standards and Privileges Committee, of which I used to be a member, and the contribution to the debate of its Chairman, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). The fact that the Government have been able to go to the Scottish Parliament, the European Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and come up with positions that are consonant with what is being proposed for Members of this House seems entirely rational and right. I welcome those amendments.
	We are dealing with the issue of the funding of political parties. We should not forget the genesis of these proposals. They were born out of a certain degree of panic at the very adverse comments in the press when it came to light that various parties were indulging in the practice of taking loans. The clear link in the public mindI make no comment at this stage about whether it is a real position or a perceptionbetween the provision of loans and the acquisition of preferment and particularly entrance to our legislature in the upper House, is something that we simply cannot afford to allow to continue. It is right that, as far as we can, we should reach a consensus between the political parties to ensure that that perception is no longer allowed to prevail.

Angus MacNeil: Transparency International has said that Parliament must be beyond reproach and be seen to be beyond reproach. Unfortunately, it has not given Westminster a clean bill of health. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as yet, nothing has appeared, especially in the Bill, that will put this Parliament beyond reproach and give it a clean bill of health?

David Heath: I agree to an extent with the hon. Gentleman. It is still incumbent on us to break that connection. I have a simple way of breaking the connection: having Members of the upper House up for election in a democratic process. However, given that there is a view

Ronnie Campbell: Or abolish them.

David Heath: There is a perfectly respectable unicameralist view; it is not one that I share, but it has its own logic, although this House would have to do a much better job of scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account if we were to move to a single Chamber. What is surely unacceptable is to have a wholly appointed House when it is so clearly prey to the whims of individuals in high office and the perception that there is a connection between providing funds for political parties and entering the legislature. We simply must not accept that in the British Parliament, and we must be absolutely clear that we will not accept it.
	The matter of loans is a small sideshow in the process that we must now undertake to cleanse the Augean stables of party political funding, but it is necessary and I welcome it. The Minister said in her opening remarks that none of us perceived the loophole when the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was going through. That is absolutely right. None of us did. But somebody certainly did subsequently. It was clearly subsequently noticed that this was a way in which political parties could acquire funds without that being properly reported. There is anecdotal evidence that people were pressed to change their intended gift into a loan. We can only guess at what the motive for such a change might be.

David Taylor: Is it not the case that the ingenious and the unprincipled will always try to evade frameworks, even though they may be a sideshow? Should not the real focus be on things such as the period during which donations and loans can be registerednot just restricting it to the election period? For instance, in the final few months prior to the last general election, in four constituenciesLancaster and Wyre, Welwyn Hatfield, The Wrekin, and Northampton, Southsubstantial amounts of money were spent following donations from rich individuals and organisations, which duly secured sizeable swings in those constituencies, which went from Labour to Conservative. Is it not there that we ought to have tighter controls that will give a fair impression to the electorate at large?

David Heath: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Having been subject to some of that increased spending, perhaps on a slightly smaller scale, from donors outside my immediate constituencycertainly a large amount of money was spent by central parties and one particular party in trying to wrest the seat from meI recognise that that is a real difficulty. I said so on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report in this House. He may recall that I tabled amendments to try to regularise the position. To some extent, the Bill moves to deal with that issue, but my suspicion is that it does not go far enough and that we need to do more to prevent what is clearly an abuse in terms of large amounts of money being spent in particular constituencies that are identified as marginal. That is out of all proportion to the limits on election spending that are properly applied to those constituencies. However, I would be digressing too far from the Lords amendments if I were to explore that to any great extent.

Andrew Love: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the only thing worse than having political parties that are dependent on a few rich individuals is having political parties that are dependent on one rich individual? I am not speaking about his party when I say that. Does he also accept that the Government have set up the review that is being undertaken by Sir Hayden Phillips? Many of the concerns that he and others have raised should be dealt with by that review, as should many of the points that party members from the nations and regions continue to press upon us. There should be all-party agreement on the matter, and, hopefully, we can clean up the act.

David Heath: I sincerely hope so, although Sir Hayden Phillips will find it enormously difficult to bring together the different strands.
	The problem is that when political parties, at a senior level, accept donations from individuals, the efforts of hon. Members are tarnished. I suspect that not a single Member in the Chamber has anything to do with large donations that are received by our respective parties. Volunteer workers in our parties get tarred with the same brush. The whole political process will be tarnished until we get the system right, which is why we need as much transparency and reporting as possible and, frankly, clear limits on both the donations and expenditure that are appropriate. Donations and expenditure are not divorced from each other. One cannot have limits on donation, yet unlimited expenditure, or vice versa. Clear limits are needed to restore the faith of the British people in our political system.

Andrew Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman says that we need clear limits and, of course, I agree with his sentiments. Will he tell us when the Liberal party intends to come forward with its package of comprehensive proposals for the reform of party funding?

David Heath: I am not sure that it is entirely right to say that we have not done so already. I accept that we have not put our proposals together as the hon. Gentleman has done, for which I commend him. However, I hope that he acknowledges that his proposal for a 50,000 cap has been our policy for some time. We have been clear about the need for both that and transparent reporting. I have made speeches in which I have made our broad attitude clear. We will be giving evidence and working with others in the context of Sir Hayden Phillips's review, and I hope that we will be able to reach a consensus. However, I foresee that there will be difficulties, owing to the differing perspectives and sources of income of the parties represented in the House. Some difficulties may be reconcilable, but perhaps some will be irreconcilable. We should strive seriously to find a consensus because if we do not, the whole of our political and democratic process will be cheapened by our lack of ability to find a common view.
	There is merit in the proposals on the reporting and admissibility of loans. I wish that such provisions had been in place some time ago. It would have been better if we had realised the possibility of adopting them when the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was passed, but it is easy to be wise after the event and not to realise the ingenuity of those who wish to circumvent any system that is put in place.
	I am especially grateful to the Minister for acknowledging the strength of an argument put forward by Lord Goodhart in another place. He made the point that cumulative payments could be part loan and part donation, and that several separate loans, or a mixture of loans and payments, could reach the threshold. The Government tabled appropriate amendments to take account of that. I am also grateful to the Minister for explaining capitalisation in relatively simple terms and outlining her proposals in that respect. I know that her colleague in the other place struggled to make sense of the proposals, but I think that we understand what is being suggested.
	The Minister will know that we disagree with the Government on one aspect of the proposals, although we have not tabled amendments to reflect that at this stage because reaching consensus is more important than getting absolutely everything. However, there is a strange anomaly that if a loan is made before the commencement of the relevant part of the Bill by a donor who proves to be non-permissible, it will be allowed to be maintained as a loan, despite the fact that if it had been made after the commencement, it would be unlawful. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate not to criminalise the loan and retrospectively make unlawful something that was quite lawful, but to require the loan to be repaid after an appropriate period of time so that the situation could be regularised. Such an approach would be logical and consistent with what the Minister said would happen if a loan was taken in good faith after the commencement of the legislation, but it was proved, after further reflection, that the donor was non-permissible. In such circumstances, the loan would have to be returnedthere is no suggestion that that should not be the caseso, to put it mildly, there is a certain lack of logic behind the Government's proposals.
	As far as we are aware, from the evidence that we have been given, there would not be a significant quantity of outstanding loans. Of course, a party would be able to make a full repayment before the commencement of the provisions, so even reporting would not be necessary because the matter would become a closed book. Some parties will wish to take advantage of that ability in respect of donations that come from overseas sources, while others will not have such loans to report. Others might take the view that they would have to make the identity of the donor public under the requirements of the legislation if the loan was still outstanding, at which point they could maintain the loan, and that would be an equally satisfactory outcome in terms of transparency. However, a difficulty would arise if the identity of a donor became known and it was quite clear that that person should not have made a donation under the terms of the Bill.
	I do not understand the Government's position on the matter. They should have thought again, but I acknowledge that when we made such points in another place, two parties did not agree with our position. They might have had their reasons for that, although I do not think that those reasons were based on logic, but I accept that as we were unlikely to secure a majority in the other place, we were certainly not going to secure a majority here, which is I why I have not tabled amendments on the matter today.

Angus MacNeil: Am I correct in understanding the hon. Gentleman as saying that the problem would be not the time at which the loan had been made, but the fact that it was still alive and outstanding?

David Heath: That is precisely so. We are talking about a loan made before the relevant timethe commencement of this part of the Billwhich is still outstanding when the Bill becomes law and is from a non-permissible donor who would not have been able to make it after the event. The right and sensible way to deal with that is to require the political party in question to repay the loan not on day onelet us live in the real worldbut over a sensible period. In that way, the matter is cleared up and settled, and no one will have benefited from what would subsequently be an unlawful donation in kind.
	I do not need to prolong our debate. The proposals are welcome. I do not think anyone is suggesting that they go far enough to deal with the problems of party funding, but they are a welcome first step. What is particularly welcome is that we have managed to achieve a degree of consensus in a relatively short time. I hope that that consensus will be maintained.

Bridget Prentice: I echo the hon. Gentleman's words. I, too, hope that the consensus continues. I am grateful to him for saying that we have achieved a great deal in a relatively short period. I apologise to the House on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who cannot be here for this part of the debate because of a previous engagement.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's position on pre-existing loans. We did not think that it would be appropriate to invalidate arrangements that were lawful when they were made. That is not the purpose of the amendments. We did not intend to wreak havoc in the finances of different political parties. However, he alluded to the fact that any loan that is outstanding when the Bill becomes law will need to be reported, and people will be able to see whether loans were given by those who have become non-permissible. People can make their own judgments as a result. The Labour party has made clear where all its existing loans have come from. I recommend that position to all parties.
	The House will have noted my emphasis throughout on explaining what the new provisions will achieve to bring greater openness to the activities of political parties in relation to loans and similar transactions. They set out a comprehensive regime, benefiting as it does from the precedent of the donations regime. I hope that as a result we will be able to have a fuller debate at a later stage on some of the issues arising from that. As I said, Sir Hayden Phillips will look at other aspects of party political funding. No doubt we will return to the subject in another form at a later stage.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 62 to 75 agreed to.

Clause 2
	  
	Use of CORE information

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5, Lords amendment No. 6 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 78, 82, 83, 87, 94, 105, 107 to 109 and 124.

Bridget Prentice: The amendments relate to the registration system. Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 relate to the co-ordinated online record of electors. Amendment No. 5 relates to the new duty on registration officers to maximise levels of registration. Given the earlier debate, I do not wish to pursue the arguments on registration further at this stage. The House has reached another consensus on the importance of increasing registration. The amendments will ensure that registration officers do their bit in making sure that the registers are as comprehensive as possible.
	Amendment No. 1 was made in response to concerns that the regulations governing the publication and supply of information kept on CORE to bodies such as political parties might differ greatly from those which apply to electoral returning officers at a local level. As Ministers made clear in another place, CORE will not change the information that is held on electoral registers, or the records that EROs are required by law to keep, or the persons and organisations to whom information may be supplied. It simply acts as a central point of access.
	Some flexibility is needed, however. For example, the CORE keeper will not be required to keep a copy of the full register available for public inspection. There is also flexibility because the amendment more clearly sets in law the principle that the regulations governing access to information held in CORE will be the same as those that apply to EROs.
	Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 were also made in response to the concern in another place that, as originally drafted, some of the security measures included in the CORE provisions might call legitimate acts into question, rather than focusing on fraudulent activity. An example of that is the potential for large households with a number of postal voters, such as student halls, to be flagged up as potentially fraudulent. Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 tighten up the Bill's drafting so that CORE will instead focus on instances where large numbers of postal votes have been redirected to an alternative address, as that is a circumstance in which fraud may be involved.
	There was also a concern that the Bill's existing provisions would flag up legitimate instances of a person voting as another elector's proxyin a sense, the reverse of the earlier concern. Amendment No. 3 responds to that by focusing again on fraudulent acts of double voting.
	The new duty on EROs is set out in amendment No. 5. The new duty is to ensure that the electoral register is complete and comprehensive. Clause 9 sets that out as a new duty and includes certain minimum steps that EROs must take to maintain their registers. As drafted, clause 9 includes
	making on more than one occasion house to house inquiries.
	Under amendment No. 5, EROs would instead be required to make such inquiries on one or more occasions. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that there is no need for electoral officers to make more than one visit if the first visit gives them the comprehensive information that they need.

Andrew Love: On amendment No. 5, the experience of my electoral staff is that because of a shortage of people to knock on doors, they are knocking only once. They then send a letter directly to the address. As a consequence, there is massive under-registration. Should not the Bill recognise the need for more than one call to be made if the officers fail to find anyone in?

Bridget Prentice: Amendment No. 5 addresses my hon. Friend's concerns. He is right that one call is often not enough. Giving EROs the duty to ensure that they have a comprehensive register, and taking on board earlier points about the variety of ways in which it is possible to gather that canvass, he is right to say that it may be necessary in some cases for the canvasser to call more than once at a particular household.
	Lords amendment No. 6 deals with service registration, which was raised on Second Reading and in subsequent discussions, and we have responded, I hope, to the points that were made in the House and elsewhere. The amendment includes two key provisions. First, it creates an order-making power to allow the Government to extend the duration of registrations made via a service declaration to up to five years. Current rules require declarations to be reconfirmed annually, so the extension would make the registration process more convenient for service personnel, particularly personnel serving overseas. To provide a proper opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, any order made under the amendment would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. If the power were used, it would affect only service personnel and their spouses or civil partners. It would not affect other persons eligible to register through a service qualification, such as Crown servants based overseas. Traditionally, it is much easier for Crown servants to register than it is for service personnel to do so, so we want to address the problem experienced by service personnel. In addition, the amendment does not require members of the armed forces to register solely through a service declaration. Servicemen and women can still register as ordinary electors if they choose to do so.

Roger Gale: Everyone in the House knows that order-making powers merely provide the power to make an order. If, as I expect, the amendment is accepted, is the Minister minded to lay the necessary statutory instrument before the House?

Bridget Prentice: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we certainly are minded to lay the appropriate measure before the House.
	Secondly, the amendment places a duty on the Ministry of Defence to keep a record of the electoral registration details of service personnel that can be used both as a prompt to the individual to update registration details with the local electoral registration officer, particularly the address to which postal votes should be sent, and as a focus for efforts to encourage service personnel to register. The record will provide statistical information that will allow continuous monitoring, and it will facilitate communication between unit registration officers and the local electoral registration officer about the numbers registered, to assist in future registration campaigns.

Julian Lewis: Will the Minister explain the objection in principle to reverting to the system that was used before the Representation of the People Act 2000? The procedure that she has outlined is extremely complicated, but our forces are far more involved in front-line action now than they were then, so it is strange that they cannot be registered once and for all by their units, as used to be the case.

Bridget Prentice: I do not accept the premise that this is a complicated measureit is a practical and straightforward method of ensuring that service personnel have the opportunity to register. The previous regime was changed because it did not work effectively. The all-party group that looked at the system concluded that it was characterised by low registration. There are concerns in the House about relatively low registration among service personnel, so I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), is in the Chamber, as he has worked closely to find a way forward. The all-party group pointed out that it was difficult for EROs to identify and communicate with service personnel. The amendment makes that process much easier and clearer, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes it.

Julian Lewis: I thank the Minister for her generosity in giving way. She said that the previous system did not work well, but does she accept that, by comparison, the new system has led to a massive reduction in registration?

Bridget Prentice: I am not happy with the level of registration among service personnel. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman attended our debate about registration in general, but the vast majority of people who fail to register are young men, who are notoriously poor at registering. We have tried to ensure that they register, and that they are encouraged to do so by their unit registration officers.

Several hon. Members: rose

Bridget Prentice: If hon. Members will allow me to complete my explanation of the amendment, they may be reassured that it is a much more progressive and positive way forward. It is part of a package of measures to aid the registration of service personnel that includes closer co-operation between the officer in each unit responsible for electoral registration and the ERO. The MOD will issue every new entrant to the armed forces with an electoral registration form, and it will run campaigns during the annual canvass for service personnel whose service declaration is about to expire. Members of the armed forces will receive reminders in their payslips about the need to register to vote and information such as website addresses and so on. Access to service accommodation will be granted to electoral registration officers. Pilot schemes for on-site polling stations at two separate military establishments took place in this year's local elections in Rushmoor and Westminster. Future campaigns will include a service Registration Day, which will act as a focal point. Unit registration officers will be proactively using all appropriate measures to remind and inform service personnel and their families both of the requirement to register to vote and of the way in which they can do so.

Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Lady accept that the position of a soldier or sailor at a shore base in Britain is very different from the position of a solider on operations in Helmand province or in Basra? [ Interruption. ] She will not receive any solace from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, because he does not know. The situation of the soldier on operations is miles away from what she has discussed. The MOD and the Electoral Commission, which does not know any better, must introduce a system with a mechanism to enable personnel in all three services training at home bases in the United Kingdom and on operations to register. Inevitably, it will be at the back of the queue for personnel who are on operations, but a great deal more work needs to be done so that it works for our gravely diminished armed forces, many of whom are on operations overseas. Unless we do so, the proposal will not make any difference at all.

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but the amendments deal with the issue. For the first time, the Ministry of Defence will keep a record of which personnel have registered and which have not done so, so we can see where the gaps are. Of course, he is right that registration is more difficult for service personnel serving overseas, but we have put in place measures that will help to achieve his aim. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wrote to me saying that he wanted to work with my Department and the Electoral Commission
	to consider what further improvements we can make to the quality of information available to Service personnel.
	A number of service personnel elect to register as ordinary voters, and that option will still be available to them.

Andrew Tyrie: A moment ago, the Minister said that the old system of registration was inadequate. Of course that is true. It was inadequate in the sense that people were left on the register after they had left the Army. That was the primary problemnot, as she implied, that service personnel who should have been registered were not registered. As far as I am aware, and I would be grateful if she could confirm this, registration among service personnel under the old scheme was comparable to that among the civilian population. Has she made any estimate of the level of registration that would result from the scheme that she has proposed tonight?

Bridget Prentice: I do not believe that substantially more service personnel were registered under the old scheme. There were problems of under-registration similar to those that we recognise now among the young men and women in our armed forces. The record that the Ministry of Defence will keep will enable us to target registration gaps.

Andrew Tyrie: I am amazed by the Minister's comments. When I looked into the matter in 2004, prior to the last election, I discovered that in the year before the introduction of the new scheme, registration was over 87 per cent. in a ward in my constituency where there were almost exclusively service personnel, and that after the introduction of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 registration had fallen to 42 or 43 per cent. I would be very surprised if that or a similar situation were not replicated right across the United Kingdom, in view of the Government's own survey, which shows a drop and an appallingly low level of service personnel participation in the election.

Bridget Prentice: I want to try to reassure the hon. Gentleman, because I know how concerned he is. He has raised the issue on a number of occasions. Under the old scheme, as he rightly points out, the declaration remained valid for five years. That sometimes had the effect of people being registered at an address that was no longer theirs, which distorted the register. There has historically been under-registration. I am grateful to my friends at the MOD for undertaking to be proactive in registering people wherever it is appropriate for them to be registered. There are service personnel who will continue to register to vote as ordinary electors, if they so wish. We would not wish to prevent them from doing so.

Simon Hughes: May I pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)? Will we be able to see, year by year, the percentage of people registered in each of the three services, and be able to tell whether those serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, Cyprus and elsewhere are also registering in sufficiently high numbers? Unless we have that information, we will not be able to ensure that those who are the most unlikely to do it have the right that they deserve at least as much as anyone else, if not more than most.

Bridget Prentice: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve and I have some sympathy with that. I am not sure that any system would allow us to do that. People move from one posting to another. We might get a snapshot of the situation, but I cannot guarantee that we could get a comprehensive result from studying overseas postings. In the discussions with colleagues in the MOD, we will consider how comprehensive the information is that we can give, in order to reassure the House that as many service personnel as possible are registered.

Simon Hughes: It might be helpful to examine one or two specific examples, such as the Marines, who have a base in my patch. If asked, the Marines might agree to do a check. We know how many Marines there are, though of course they move around the world. We could see whether the registration figure was 50 per cent., 80 per cent. or whatever, and that would give us some idea. It is those who are most mobile who should concern us most.

Bridget Prentice: Yes, I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. To some extent we will be able to do that, to see whether there is an increase or a decrease in registration year on year in each of the services. That might go some way to meeting the point that he makes.

Julian Lewis: The Minister has been extremely generous in giving way. I am puzzled by the fact that she does not seem to be aware of the survey that was published only last week by the Government's own Defence Analytical Services Agency, which went to the heart of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), that when we are speaking about servicemen based at home it is an entirely different kettle of fish from servicemen based overseas, often on active service. The survey showed that only 34 per cent. of UK personnel serving overseas were registered, compared with 64 per cent. of those based in the UK. That is a massive disparity, and no amount of tinkering with the new system can bridge that gap.

Bridget Prentice: I am indeed aware of that survey. One of the reasons why it was published last week was to inform this very debate. The Ministry of Defence wanted hon. Members to understand the present situation. In its co-operation with me and with my Department on the Bill, the MOD has given a very positive steer on the work that should be done. The figure of 34 per cent., which none of us would say is high enough, does not take account of the fact that some service personnel are registered at home. When we bandy about statistics, we must make sure that we cover all the options. I am not satisfied with the number of service personnel who are registered, and neither are my colleagues in the MOD, which is why we have tabled the amendments. However, I do not believe that the position is much worse than pre-2002.
	I hope that I have responded comprehensively on the subject of service personnel registration. We have made huge strides in that regard, and I hope that the House will welcome and endorse the amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for his continuing support.

Nicholas Soames: rose

Bridget Prentice: I will give way once more, but only because it is the hon. Gentleman.

Nicholas Soames: The hon. Lady is extremely generous. She is making a magnificent job of a sow's ear. Does she accept that what is so galling is not that the Ministry of Defence is trying to put the situation right, as we know it is? There is considerable merit in some of the points that she makes. Prior to the last election, my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and I, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Defence, and many others pointed out repeatedly that registration was not being properly carried out. We heard that from everywhere. It is galling that it was so dismally badly done. In order to remedy the problem, the hon. Lady will have to deal more specifically with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East made about servicemen serving overseas. It is more important that they know of their right and their chance to vote than it is for people sitting comfortably at home.

Bridget Prentice: I could not agree more about the importance of doing everything we can to help our servicemen and women who are on overseas missions to be registered

Nicholas Soames: On operations.

Bridget Prentice: Indeed, on operations, and sometimes, as we know, in extremely dangerous life-threatening situations. I am grateful to my colleagues in the MOD for the positive and supportive way in which they have responded to the issue. We will do everything that we can to register those people, because it is not acceptable to send them to represent our country abroad in very dangerous situations without giving them every opportunity to vote in any of our elections.
	Amendments Nos. 78, 87, 94, 105, 107 to 109 and 124 were introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Rix and Lord Carter with support from the Government. They deal with the abolition of common law incapacity and relate to assistance for people with disabilities. The other amendments in the group are consequential, and they change the terms physical cause, physical incapacity and incapacity to disability.
	Amendment No. 78 abolishes any common law rule that links a person's capacity to vote to their mental state. That is what currently ties the language of idiots and lunatics to electoral legislation, and it has led to disabled people being denied the right to vote. That link is derived from outmoded concepts and terminology found in 14th-century statute law and 18th-century cases. It has led to election officials making unjustified assumptions about the mental capacity of disabled people, and it has no place in modern law and our modern democracy. Amendment No. 78, which has been developed in conjunction with organisations such as Scope and Sense, will allow disabled people to be subject to exactly the same eligibility criteria as everyone else.
	Other amendments in the group clarify the language used about disabled people in election law, replacing the word incapacity with the word disability, which is a much more appropriate term for the purposes of election law, because it encompasses all forms of disability and does not simply imply mental incapacity. I am proud that the Government have eradicated that language and the behaviour that it encourages from electoral law.
	Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 relate to anonymous registration and the names of electors allocated to polling stations. As it stands, the returning officer would have no obligation to provide the parts of the register that contain entries relating to those who are anonymously registered. The amendments correct that by substituting names of in rule 29(3)(c) for entries relating to, and similar consequential changes are already included at other points within the Bill.
	Amendment No. 83 makes a small change to the provisions relating to anonymously registered electors. Paragraph 15(7) of schedule 1 allows the electoral number of an anonymous entry to be included in the edited version of the register, which is available for general sale. Although an anonymously registered person's name and address will not appear on the edited register, we believe that the inclusion of even the elector's number creates a small potential risk, particularly in registers that cover a small area where undue attention could be drawn to an anonymous entry. The risk is small, but it could be avoided altogether if the edited register were not to include anonymous entries.
	Conservative amendments (a) and (b) would create a system in which the relevant Department would have to register service personnel and Crown servants, unless those people chose to opt out, and they would have significant resource implications. Apart from setting up the system, the Department would be obliged to check with the relevant electoral registration officer that the relevant person was actually registered to vote, which would be extremely time-consuming and costly. In addition, the amendments cover all Departments, which seems unnecessary because, with the exception of service personnel, about whom I have already spoken at length, we have no evidence to suggest that there is a problem with electoral registration among employees of other Departments. I therefore ask the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) to withdraw the amendment.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and other Conservative Members have pressed the Government hard to tackle the problems that have arisen for service voters since the 2000 Act. Although the 2000 Act gave service voters various ways to register, the fact that only 46 per cent. of servicemen and women, and just 28 per cent. of those based overseas, voted in the last general election indicates the serious nature of the problem. Those concerns prompted the MOD to conduct the survey, which showed that only 60 per cent. of service personnel were registered to vote at the last general election. The Army had a significantly lower registration rate than either the Navy or the RAF. Furthermore, only 34 per cent. of those serving overseas were registered, compared with 64 per cent. of those based in the UK, which is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made a moment ago.
	Those findings are disappointing and show that urgent action is needed to address the problem. However, the actual registration figures are probably worse than the MOD figures suggest. The overall response rate to the survey was only 45 per cent, but in the key category of other ranks in the Army based overseas only 26 per cent. bothered to return the survey, of whom only one third were registered. The report accepts that personnel who did not respond may well have different voting and registration experiences from those who did. It makes sense that those who returned the survey were a self-selected group and were therefore much more likely to include those who were registered to vote. In my view, those who failed to return the survey will almost certainly be people who tend to fail to return electoral registration forms, and I think that that means that significantly less than 34 per cent. of servicemen and women serving overseas are registered.
	The current situation is very concerning. Of those who responded to the survey, 61 per cent. were unaware that they had to re-register every year, and that percentage increased to 71 per cent. among those overseas. The Constitutional Affairs Committee has called on the MOD to look into that issue. Amendment No. 6 does not go very far, because it simply encourages the MOD to register its personnel rather than making it a requirement or duty. One therefore has to ask whether working for the MOD, serving as a soldier in dangerous circumstances, is just like any other job, or whether it imposes some greater duty on the employer compared with the position of a student or other person on civvy street. The Army pamphlet, Basically fair: equality and diversity in the British Army, says:
	As a soldier you are expected to put the needs of the Service first and to forgo some of the rights enjoyed in civilian life. In return you can at all times expect to be treated fairly, and to be valued and respected as an individual.
	In other words, a soldier does not have the full rights of civilian life and is expected to put the needs of the service first. In many cases, as we know, soldiers give much more than othersindeed, they give their lives. In those circumstances, surely the MOD can do as well as a university.

Tom Watson: Just for clarification, is the hon. Gentleman asking us to oblige all our service personnel to vote; and if so, could he tell us what other employer obliges its employees to register?

Oliver Heald: Given that we are talking about such a crucial issue as people serving overseas being denied their democratic rights in the last general election, it is sad that the Minister did not even trouble to read our amendment, which makes it perfectly clear that any serviceman would have an absolute right to opt out. The duty would be on the MOD to register a person to vote
	unless under the provision of subsection (3AA) they decline to do so.
	Of course it is a matter of personal choice for the person who is serving as to whether they want to be registered. If the Minister had been here earlier, he would have heard our debate about registration generally, with Members giving examples of universities registering their students and households where the father registers the rest of the family. Servicemen are not in that position. They are in places such as Helmand, where the situation is extremely difficult and this will not be the first thing on their minds. Many of my hon. Friends and other Members think it important that our servicemen should always have the right to vote. If that means a little extra trouble for the MOD, so be it.

Ronnie Campbell: My son is in the Royal Marines and has been for many years. He always managed to get a proxy vote and left it to his mothernow to his wife, of courseto vote on his behalf. Is that a better way forward?

Oliver Heald: It is certainly a way forward. I just want to ensure that the MOD has a duty placed on it to do something about this. I do not know so much about the Armywe will hear from Members who dobut I would guess that if it is a requirement and a duty, the Army will do it, but if it is a matter of guidance or discretion, it is very much up in the air. The figures suggest that it is not happening at the moment.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend think it bizarre that the Government earlier rejected a sensible proposal to introduce the use of national insurance numbers to prevent fraud because it would lead to a drop in registration, yet they will not take this step, which would guarantee increased registration among servicemen? Why do the Government seem not to care about the registration levels of people in our armed forces?

Oliver Heald: That is a good question. It is sad that the MOD is not prepared to do this for our servicemen. The special circumstances of the armed forces mean that we should err on the side of preserving their right to vote, and any inertia should operate in favour of democracy.

Bridget Prentice: I refer the hon. Gentleman to subsection (2) of amendment No. 6, which says:
	Arrangements must be made by the appropriate government department.
	We are enforcing a duty on the Ministry of Defence in that respect. I should have thought that he would at least recognise that and be slightly more consensual about the way forward.

Oliver Heald: As the Under-Secretary knows, I believe that amendment No. 6 is better than nothing and I congratulate all those, including my noble Friend Baroness Hanham, who managed to wring it out of the Ministry of Defence. However, if she reads further, she will realise that the Ministry of Defence is required to secure
	(so far as circumstances permit) an effective opportunity of exercising from time to time as occasion may require the rights
	to register and to vote. That is not the same as requiring the Ministry of Defence to effect the registration of servicemen. I want that to happen. There is a difference between us and I hope that I have made the point clearly. We do not agree and I would therefore like to press amendment (a) to a Division, because our servicemen deserve it.

Simon Hughes: Before I come on to the substantive debate about service personnel, I emphasise that we support all the other amendments and I am grateful to the Government for accepting them. Some of them were tabled by Opposition Members, including colleagues of mine. Lord Greaves and others pressed some and I am grateful that they have been accepted.
	The main debate is about Lords amendment No. 6 and amendment (a), which the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) tabled. I hope that we are all united in our view that we must deal with a severe problem. The hon. Gentleman read out the figures, which my noble Friend Lord Garden cited in the debate in the Lords. They show that there has been a considerable drop in the number of registered service personnel and the number of service personnel who vote, and a worse drop in the number of service personnel overseas who vote. That is evident from the facts. We are grateful for the figures, but even they may hide the reality.
	What should be done? I hope that I do not inappropriately betray confidences when I say that I know that the Department for Constitutional Affairs has been keen for some time to press the Ministry of Defence to make a set of commitments. It has also been keen for the proposal that has now come from the Lords to be agreed. I believe that it is generally known that the Ministry of Defence did not sign up to that until the recent reshuffle. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who is present, made it clear that they shared the view of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I pay tribute to them for making their views clear and for the fact that, at last, there was an end to the differences between the two Departments.
	Lord Garden, who was a Chief of the Defence Staff in a previous life, knows about such matters. He sensed that there was resistance in the Ministry of Defence and said so. He made it clear that the resistance was unacceptable. The Government have now accepted the amendment that my noble Friend originally tabled, which was supported by the Opposition parties and others. It is now before us, with Government support. There is a remaining difference, which is not big, between the Government position, for which we voted in the House of Lords, and amendment (a). My colleagues and I are sympathetic to its objective but, given that Lords amendment No. 6 is the proposalindeed, the exact wordsthat we tabled, it would be unfair to say to the Government, Thank you very much. You've tabled what we were tabling, but we're going to vote against it. In all logic and honesty, we must be consistent about that.

Oliver Heald: It is true that that might appear odd but, although Lords amendment No. 6 takes the matter further, it does not contain everything that we wanted. Could not the hon. Gentleman be tempted into the Lobby with us?

Simon Hughes: I am always willing to be tempted but I shall have to show some discipline to the troops who will emerge at the appropriate moment.  [Interruption.] They keep coming to ask me when they will be required and I have told them that it will not be before half-time in the Brazil  v. Croatia game.
	Let me get back to the serious matter before us. I hope that a combination of the proposal before us, as agreed by the other place, and all the undertakings that the Ministry of Defence has given, will be put in place. Speaking bluntly, it will be a disgrace if they are not. We have had an undertaking that there will be registration campaigns and visits to barracks and service quarters, and that people will be given an opportunity to register when they sign up and regularly thereafter. We have also been assured that they will be able to stay on the register for three, four or five years rather than just one. In that way, they will not have to worry about registering each year if they are deployed away from home, which is clearly an improvement. The MOD will have to ensure that it provides the facilities and regular opportunities for service personnel at home and for those going around the world to be on the list, so that they can exercise their right to vote, whether in person, by post or by proxy.
	It is reasonable to stop at that point now, however, because it would change the nature of the relationship if we made the Ministry of Defence unique in being the only employer to have to do this for its personnel. I can see the argument for doing that and I am sympathetic to where the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and his Conservative colleagues are coming from on this matter, but it would be slightly inconsistent to do so. There are diplomatic personnel, civil servants and people in the private sector, as well as other people in public services who are sent out round the world. It would be slightly illogical to place a unique duty on the MOD to do this for its own people if a similar obligation did not exist for, say, a university sending some of its staff abroad, or for the House sending some of our Clerks to a conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
	We will judge the results of these measures by what we see. If numbers are not restored to their former levels or better, we shall have to go furthereither in practice or in legislation. But I hope that the message has been sent out loud and clear by Ministers to the Chief of the Defence Staff, and I hope that it will be clear as soon as the provision becomes law that people will be expected to comply with it. I hope that it will be reviewed regularly, not only by the Electoral Commission and the Government, but by all colleagues in all parties in the House.
	I end by echoing what has been said by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and others. Like them, I have many constituents who have served abroad. One of my staff has just come back from serving with the Marines in Iraq, and colleagues of mine have family members who have served all over the world. The reality is that, of all people who have an entitlement to vote and who should have the opportunity to do so, those who put their lives on the line for their country deserve that opportunity the most. It should be made as easy for them as possible to achieve that, and this provision represents a good step forward. If it is insufficient, we will go further. Given that we argued for this and that the Government have delivered, we will support them in the Lobby tonight. However, I hope that they and the MOD understand that this time they have to deliver. There must be no fudging; otherwise, they will certainly be hearing a lot more from us.

Nicholas Soames: Few of us in the House can resist the blandishments of the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), except perhaps on fox hunting. She is regarded on this side of the House as being eminently sound. There is no one here tonight who would not applaud what the MOD is trying to do. I accept that, but I rise to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and by the new shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
	There are servicemen and women who do not want to vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who was an instructor at Sandhurst, will be well aware that many officers, in particular, who wear the Queen's uniform feel that it is improper to vote and do not want to do so. Indeed, that was often the case in my own regiment. However, they amount to a minuscule number.
	The reason why the figures were so bad at the last election was that so many of our troops were away on operations. The shaming thing is that the Army is worse than anyone else at arranging for its staff to vote, and that is why the amendment is so important. The Navy has been going away regularly for ever and ever, and the naval family service is much the best of the three services' family organisations, so the Navy will have in place some form of proxy voting, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) suggested. It will be custom-made, and the Navy takes the trouble to make sure that its people can vote. The Royal Air Force is a particularly fluffy serviceand rightlyin respect of its personnel and it has always taken more trouble over its people, but historically, the Army has never taken enough trouble. The majority of service personnel working overseas are, of course, soldiers. That is why the figures were particularly bad, which makes it even more important for the Ministry of Defence to get it right.
	I welcome the steps that are being taken. I also welcome the Under-Secretary to his new position and wish him the best of luck serving what is without doubt the most fascinating and challenging Department in Whitehall. I particularly want him to understand that getting the Ministry of Defence to do anything is like plucking teeth out of a chicken. It is extremely difficult. It means playing to a number of audiences that have all got to do the same thing.
	In order to get these provisions to work in respect of operations overseas, we need to look not to the civilian staff, but to the chain of command and the hierarchy. When it comes to dealing with a divisional or brigade headquarters, we could think of Brigadier Butler of the 16th Air Assault Brigade being given a rocket about voting problems in the middle of trying to sort out Helmand provincea ridiculous thought. There has to be a joined-up, coherent, sensible, grown-up, practical and common-sense system in place to enable soldiers to be told exactly what their rights are before they deploy. They must know that they have the right to vote and that if they wish to exercise it, arrangements will be made for them to do so.
	It is very important for the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to understand that, if she is going to make it work by ensuring that the services make it work, it will require an effort of will from the chain of command in all the services, but particularly in the Army, to get those arrangements made. Not to do so would be inexcusable. The Ministry of Defence did very badly at the last election. We called it to account for what was happening several times in parliamentary questions and the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces was either very badly informed or given less than frank answers by officials. The position in respect of service voting was deplorable and even though it is, as I say, difficult to organise, it should have been done a great deal better than it was. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who hung on like a terrier throughout.
	I welcome the amendment and commend the Minister for his approach. I applaud the fact that the Ministry of Defence is going to implement this, but it will require an effort of will by the Minister to see it through to fruition.

Roger Gale: I rise to support amendments (a) and (b) and in so doing, I seek to honour a pledge to a group of men and women from whose company I have recently returned. Under the auspices of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, it was my privilege earlier this month to spend a few days on HMS Bulwark in the Gulf. That ship, with its men and women of the Royal Navy, its Royal Marine commandos and naval aviators, will have been on deployment for seven months by the time she returns to home waters. During that time, the most recent electionsthe local government elections, gently to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)took place.
	Ordinarily, when MPs visit military establishments, whether they be floating or shore-based, they expect to hear complaints about pay and conditions and all sorts of things. However, for the first time ever on my visits to military establishmentsI remind the House that I have been Parliamentary Private Secretary to two Ministers of State, so I have visited manyI heard military men and women complain about the right to vote, or, more exactly, being denied it.
	Those people discovered during the local government elections that they were effectively disfranchised, and it mattered to them because they also felt that they should not have to pay council tax when they are away for such a long time. That is adding insult to injury, when they not only have to pay the council tax, but are unable to vote in council elections, and it was a cause of considerable irritation to them.
	When people are deployed away from home and their families for as long as those men and women have been away, these issues matter. When they are in the teeth of dangeras they were in the Gulf, as they are now in the Red sea and as they will be until they return home safely, we hope, in two or three months' timethey feel very strongly that we, their elected representatives, are letting them down.
	To come specifically to amendments (a) and (b), I wish to support them because I believe that they will strengthen the measures contained in Lords amendment No. 6. The Minister said that one of the reasons for resisting those amendments was that there wereI quote exactlyresource implications. I suggest to the hon. Lady that there are very considerable resource implications for the men and women who are prepared to put their lives on the line for this country. Frankly, if we cannot provide those boys and girlsthat is what they are in many caseswith the resources to enable them to take part in the democratic process, we bring shame upon ourselves and do no justice to them.
	I hope and believe that the Minister will think again, look at those two modest amendments and recognise that what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and their other signatories have sought to do is not to undermine the Government's position, but to strengthen that of our armed forces and to send out a very clear message to those men and women who serve in extremely difficult and dangerous places overseas: We respect you. We admire you. We understand your needs. We recognise your democratic rights. And in the House of Commons, we are prepared to vote for them tonight.

Andrew Tyrie: We heard the best possible justification inadvertently made by the Liberal spokesman for a scheme designed uniquely for servicemen, when the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) tried to draw a comparison between sending Commons Clerks on an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference and sending servicemen to Helmand province. That seems to be a different order of responsibility and risk. It is clear from that example that there is a case for devising a scheme specifically for servicemen in their unique circumstances.
	I am very grateful to hon. Members for referring to the campaign that I ran before the last general electionin fact, it started in 2004to try to draw attention to the issue. This is one of the great scandalsthe other is postal votingthat came out of the 2005 general election, and neither of them have yet been adequately addressed. However, we have made some progress on this issue at least, and I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who certainly had her heart in the right place on the issue, and I strongly suspect that the Minister does too.
	We have made progress in several ways. First, I had to press the Government for a survey, but we managed to get one in the end. Although it is faulty, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) pointed out a moment ago, it tells us none the less some of the information that we need to know. It tells us that much more work is still to be done and that a lot of servicemen are not registered.
	We have also made progress because we have a Government proposal. It is the product of extensive horse-trading and tension between the two Departments represented on the Front Bench now. The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice) and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) look as though they are getting on fine at the momentI am sure that, as Ministers, they arebut I have been briefed by members of their Departments about the to-ing and fro-ing that has been going on behind the scenes, and it has been substantial at times.
	The Government's proposal is to extend registration for up to five yearsthat is a step forwardbut the second part, which is more problematic, is to place a duty on the Ministry of Defence to keep a record of the registration of service personnel. The Minister rather gave the game away when she said that the record would be used to act as a prompt to encourage registration. That is well short of the requirement that we need. The Minister said that she had been encouraged by assurances about the way in which the MOD would run the scheme, and that those assurances would enable the problem to be resolved. We cannot, however, keep relying on assurances from the MOD. The MOD understandably has different priorities. It does not want to act as a registration officer; it never did. It would rather not have such an administrative responsibility, and it was happy to see the back of the old scheme with the introduction of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That is why I worry that underlying the Government's proposals will be a dependence on a level of will in the MOD to make them work. That may not always be sufficient. That is why I want the provisions bolstered.
	I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats will not join us in the Lobby tonight, as they tabled an inadequate amendment in the House of Lords and do not want to vote against their own proposals. We should support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, which will place a duty on the MOD to make sure that all reasonable steps are taken to get service personnel back on the register. On many occasions, I have outlined in the House why that is essential. It is not too much to ask of the MOD, and it is particularly important at this time, when we have service personnel, putting their lives at risk to bring democracy to other countries, who have themselves recently been left disfranchised, and who may yet, even as a result of this measure, find themselves still disfranchised. That will not do.

Julian Lewis: I promised my party's business managers that were I fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would make an exceedingly brief speech. Fulfilling that promise has been made much easier by the outstanding contributions of my four hon. Friends who have spoken before me, and by the outstanding generosity of the Minister in allowing me to make many of my points in interventions.
	Earlier this afternoon, I listened avidly to that section of the proceedings dealing with the argument about whether simply being required to give a specimen signature, as well as one or two other minor matters, might be a deterrent to people to register. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) described how such simple, little hurdles had been enough to reduce registration in those parts of the country where they had been incorporated into electoral law. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), after I intervened on him to point out that the reason for those reductions might be that the names on the list were those of non-existent people rather than of genuine people who felt that they could no longer be troubled to register, replied that even if that might be true in some cases, it was more important to get the genuine people on to the list, even if the price to be paid was that some bogus names were kept on the list.
	If having to give a national insurance number or signature, or having to register individually in some way, has such a depressing effect on the numbers of people who register to vote, might not roadside bombs, rocket-propelled grenades, snipers and all the other threats to life and limb that our servicemen and women face every day on active service conceivably have an effect on their willingness, year after yearno matter how strongly urged by conscientious, democracy-loving MOD civil servantsto sit down and fill in their forms dutifully? We have seen from the survey the massive differential between the numbers who register to vote when overseas and the numbers, even of servicemen and women, who do so when based at home. We have only heard one real argument against the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald): that advanced by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the idea that civil servants, diplomats and, heaven help us, Members of Parliament will feel aggrieved because when they go abroad they will not be registered automatically, unlike front-line soldiers, sailors and airmen, is something that I would have expected to hear from him on April fools day rather than during a serious debate.
	I see no intellectual argument against what my hon. Friend proposes, and I see every moral argument in favour of it. It will be a shame indeed if and when the amendment is defeated by the Government and the Liberal Democrats tonight.

Keith Simpson: I declare an interest. For many years I taught the armed forces, and I married a commanding officer, who under the old Army was responsible for the registration of her military personnel.
	Unlike the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), I support amendments (a) and (b). Many reasons could be given for claiming that members of the emergency services frequently risk their lives and do things that are beyond the norm, but I think that most Members would agree that the armed forces are different, in that they have unlimited liability. They do not work shifts; they can be mobilised literally within an hour, be at Brize Norton and, increasingly, be sent off on overseas operations.
	Fifteen years ago, before the collapse of the Warsaw pact, the armed forces were largely stationary. They were based either in this country or in Germany, and the Ministry of Defence had a paternalistic attitude towards them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) suggested, many of them may not have wanted to vote for one reason or another. However, I believe that circumstances have changed. I think that our military personnel should be treated differently, first because of the nature and tempo of operations, secondly because many Members in all parties have received complaints not just from military personnel but from their familiesthere was considerable foot-dragging on the Government's part before the general electionand thirdly because the tempo of elections has speeded up. We are seeing more frequent elections at local, national and European level.
	I also feel strongly that the MOD and its personnel should be given an opportunity to have the right to vote. I suggest, particularly to the Minister responsible for the armed forces, that denying them that opportunity will increase the likelihood of an inclination towards some form of military federation. Sadly, as we know, many members of the armed forces have begun to view the chain of command with considerable suspicion. I suggest to the MOD that one way in which Ministers can show that they are in touch with the armed forces is to go the whole hog and support amendments (a) and (b).

Bridget Prentice: We have had a very good debate. I noted and understood the passion with which Members made their case. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will recognise that Ministers in both the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Ministry of Defence have tried to deal with the concerns raised hereparticularly by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie)and in the other place. I hope that Opposition Members will read the Lords amendment in detail. It may not go as far as they would like, but it gives the Secretary of State for Defence an obligation to encourage registration. I also hope that they do not continue to make a mistake that has been made in some contributions to the debate, which is to mix up registration with deciding to vote; there is a difference between being on the register and then making the conscious decision to go out and vote.
	I remind Members that there are other amendments in this groupaffecting people with disabilities, and so onthat I hope they can support. I ask them to support the amendments from the House of Lords, I also ask them to oppose amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 6.
	 Lords Amendment agreed to.
	 Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.
	New Clause
	 Lords amendment: No. 6, after clause 12, to insert a new clause Registration in pursuance of service declaration.
	 Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a) [Mr. Heald.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 322.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 20
	  
	Review of polling places

Lords amendment: No. 16.

Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 46, 50 to 58, 84 to 86, 96 to 101, 104, 106, 123, 125, 130 and 132.

Bridget Prentice: Amendment No. 16 is a technical amendment that relates to the dividing of electoral wards in Scotland into polling districts. As originally drafted, clause 20 defines an electoral ward in Scotland by reference to section 5 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994, but the definition in section 5 is to be repealed and replaced by a definition set out in section 1 of the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004, which will come into force in November this year. The amendment therefore ensures that the Bill refers to the correct statute.

Gavin Strang: On the face of it, it seems that we are simply replacing the reference to the UK statute with a reference to the Scottish Parliament statute. My hon. Friend will know that this Parliament determines the electoral laws for elections to the Scottish Parliament, but the Scottish Parliament determines the electoral laws for elections to local councils in Scotland. There has been a lot of concern about the management of the elections that are to take place in May 2007. Many would argue that the arrangements are a dog's breakfastindeed, it has been suggested that some places will need two polling stations and people will have to go to both to cast their votes in the two elections. I understand that that might not be necessary, but can my hon. Friend assure us that the amendment will not facilitate its happening in future?

Bridget Prentice: I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. We are simplifying the procedure to make sure that the Bill reflects the definition in the most recent Act of the Scottish Parliament.

Oliver Heald: But concern remains about people having to go to two polling stations if more than one election is taking place. Is the Minister able to give us solace on that point by stating that people will have to go to only one polling station?

Bridget Prentice: I can most certainly give the hon. Gentleman that solace. There will be only one polling station.
	Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 relate to false statements at nomination. They are consequential on the removal of what was clause 23 of the Bill. An independent candidate in his consent to nomination would have been required to
	state that he has not been selected or authorised to stand in the name or on behalf of any registered party, organisation or other person.
	Clause 27(3) makes it an offence to make a false statement to that effect. However, as that statement is no longer required to be made, there is no need to create another offence. I know that Liberal Democrat Members will be particularly pleased that we are not creating any further offences.
	Amendments Nos. 19 to 26 and Amendment No. 88 relate to the provision for candidates' expenses. Hon. Members might recall that we had a vigorous debate on that issueled by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns)on Report in the Commons.  [ Interruption. ] Indeed, it was led very ably. Several issues were raised and the Government took on board the views of hon. Members and resolved to work through them in another place. The key concern that we were trying to address by introducing the four-month period for candidates' election expenses was about unregulated spending taking place in advance of the elections expenses period beginning. We touched on that in an earlier debate this evening. The amendments that we are considering today will return us to the present situation in respect of the length of a candidate's elections expenses period. A candidate's election expenses will count against his or her statutory expenditure limit from the point at which they become a candidate. In the case of a candidate at a general election, that will be the period between the Dissolution of Parliament and polling day. In local elections, it is the period from the last date of publication of the notice of election up until polling day.
	For the record, I should point out that these amendments will not affect the very useful provisions in clauses 29 and 31, which clarify the scope of activity by unauthorised third parties under section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and what counts as election expenses for candidates. I recognise that the Bill will not now address the problem of unregulated amounts of money being spent by candidates in the months or weeks leading up to the point at which the general election is called. As I am sure that we are all aware, political campaigning techniques are becoming more sophisticated and more time, effort, and money is being invested in campaigning in marginal seats in particular. The issue is about money being spent at a local levelsometimes quite large amountsand not counting as candidates' election expenses because it is spent before the Dissolution of Parliament.
	Labour Members have already expressed their concerns about the way in which that has affected results, particularly in the last general election, and I am sorry that we have been unable to come up with an early solution to the problem. However, along with working towards a consensus on this issue with the parties and peers in another place, we have talked to Sir Hayden Phillips and asked him whether he will extend his review to look at the issue of expenses of parties and candidates during the election period. This approach will make sense, because it means that all facets of party funding and election spending will be examined across the piece. I am sure that a comprehensive approach can then be achieved. I know that Sir Hayden will welcome any input that hon. Members care to make to that review on this and related matters.

Alan Whitehead: I understand the reasons for the withdrawal of the four-month rule, particularly because of the difficulty of finding out what exactly a four-month rule constitutes as far an election is concerned. However, it is a great pitymy hon. Friend is reflecting on thisthat something like it could not have been included in the Bill. That is particularly the case given that the abusethat is what it isnot only took place before the last election, but is going on now, and was going on as soon as the last election was completed. It seems essential that early action be taken. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate this evening, will she indicate whether, should Sir Hayden Phillips come up with something that passes muster as far as providing a proper end to this abuse is concerned, she will consider

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman's intervention is going on for rather a long time.

Bridget Prentice: I, too, am disappointed that we have not been able to find a solution in the Bill. However, there is logic behind asking Sir Hayden to consider the matter, because all the work on party funding and election spending will thus be carried out together. It would be unwise to pre-empt the results of the review by keeping the four-month provision in the Bill. If Sir Hayden's review shows that we require legislation, we will try to deal with that at an early stage.
	May I make a final point on the matter by commending the work that was done by our colleague, Peter Bradley, who put the matter in the public domain and showed the scandalous state of affairs that existed?

Mark Tami: We are talking about not just a few leaflets, but concerted campaigns in which, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent to target specific seats, although other seats are often ignored. The amount of money that is poured in shows that this is not a minor matter. Large sums are targeted at specific seats at an early stage, and some seats are being targeted even now.

Bridget Prentice: My hon. Friend makes the case for action extremely well. I hope that he and other hon. Membersnot just Labour Members, because I hope that Opposition Members will reflect on the matter and realise how scandalous the situation iswill offer positive solutions to Sir Hayden so that we can rectify the situation as soon as possible.
	Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 46, 84 to 86, 97 and 99 deal with a system of electoral observation in the United Kingdom. As a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, we have sent teams to be observers of elections. The organisation also has responsibility for sending teams of international observers to elections that take place here. However, the UK has never had an official method by which international electoral observers may attend election proceedings in the United Kingdom. The amendments thus give effect to the recommendations of the Electoral Commission and other electoral observation experts by facilitating such observations.
	It was intended that the UK should be brought into line with many newer democracies by giving independent electoral observers the right to observe proceedings and working practices, and that we should bring greater transparency to the electoral system, in line with international electoral practice. However, we received representations that suggested the provisions of clause 33 did not go far enough to ensure that UK elections could be observed freely and objectively. We accepted those arguments and hence brought forward amendments.
	The Lords amendments will remove the requirement of accredited individual observers to apply for the permission of a returning officer or counting officer to attend proceedings at the issue or receipt of postal ballot papers, proceedings at a poll and proceedings at a count. They also remove the ability of election officials to revoke their permission at any time, with reasons. That means that any removal of accreditation will have to be made by the Electoral Commission, which will give reasons for that revocation.
	As part of the removal of those requirements, observers should not have to inform electoral administrators of the places that they intend to observe, or, indeed, the time at which they will arrive. However, observers will be subject to any existing enactments that regulate attendance at election proceedings. We have included two caveats in the provisions: the Electoral Commission will be able to specify a maximum number of delegates that may attend any single election proceeding, and may revoke an organisation's observer accreditation, giving reasons. It must be clear to the House that the power to specify a maximum number of delegates will not limit the number of delegates that an organisation can send to observe an election generally. The limit will be on the number of delegates who can attend a particular proceeding. For example, the commission may object to an organisation requesting to send 50 delegates to the counting proceedings for a parliamentary by-election. The amendments also remove the requirement for representatives of the Electoral Commission to apply for the permission of a returning officer to observe an election or other electoral proceedings, or for the permission of a counting officer to observe proceedings at a referendum.

David Heath: May I express my gratitude to the hon. Lady for listening to the points raised? As a sometime observer for the OSCE, it was a huge embarrassment to learn that this country was unable to offer the facilities that it expected other countries to provide to observation missions. The original draft was hopeless in its inadequacy. That has been corrected, and I am grateful.

Bridget Prentice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I am glad that we have managed to reassure him.
	The safeguards do not affect any other power an electoral officer may have to maintain order at any election proceeding. The particular power in this group of amendments is needed to enable electoral officers to protect the integrity and proper conduct of the electoral process. Without such safeguards, electoral proceedings could be open to abuse by an observer whose motives for attending turn out not to be legitimate, objective scrutiny of the elections.
	The purpose of Lords amendments Nos. 50 to 52 is to fulfil the commitment that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State made on 17 November to provide for the piloting at a local level of photos on ballot papers. Should a subsequent evaluation prove positive, the amendments also allow for roll-out at parliamentary and local elections and by-elections. The Electoral Commission supports the piloting of the provision.
	Lords amendments Nos. 53 and 125 relate to voting by persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. If a doctor considers someone to be well enough to be absent from the hospital, he or she should not be prevented from voting in person. The amendments provide that detained patients may vote in person if they are granted permission to be absent from the hospital and if voting in person does not breach any condition attached to that permission. The amendments continue to give detained patients the option to vote by post or proxy if they so wish.
	Lords amendments Nos. 54 to 58 relate to the provision of guidance in alternative formats and languages other than English and Welsh, as provided for in clauses 36 and 37. That is aimed at improving access to the electoral process for certain groups of electors who may previously have had difficulties in obtaining documents in formats that are appropriate for their needs. Clause 36 provides for the translation of election documents apart from the nomination papers and ballot papers into different languages and formats, at the electoral officer's discretion. Clause 37 covers the provision of guidance to those voting by post.
	As drafted, the clauses provided that election officials may provide documents in other formats as they think appropriate. The amendments replace may with must, changing the requirement on election officials to provide the documents in alternative formats for those voting in person and by post where necessary. The amendments also extend the type of guidance that can be offered under clauses 36 and 37 by giving election officials a general power to produce documents in formats besides Braille, other languages and graphical representations, and by specifying that election officials can provide documents in an audible form, such as a tape.
	Lords amendments Nos. 98, 100 to 102, 123 and 130 relate to access to the count and nominations. Currently, access to the count is limited to the candidate's spouse or civil partner. The amendments will provide that a candidate can invite a person of their choosing. They respond to points raised by Baroness Gale in the other place. The amendments will also cover attendance at nominations.
	The amendments deal with one further issue in relation to access to the count because they restore the discretion of the returning officer to invite any person to the count who does not appear in the list of specified persons who automatically have a right to attend under electoral law. We had originally planned to remove that discretion, but electoral administrators suggested that it could cause a problemfor example, it might prevent a local mayor who is not the returning officer from attending a count in a constituency in his area. I dare say it would also apply to Members of Parliament who wish to attend local election counts.

Peter Bone: Am I correct in thinking that Members of Parliament do not have an automatic right to attend a local count, as I had to apply to become a local agent?

Bridget Prentice: Members of Parliament do not have an automatic right to attend the count, which is why we reinstated the returning officer's discretion to allow a Member of Parliament or the mayor, as I said, to do so. If the returning officer uses his discretion, Members of Parliament would not require nomination to attend the count.
	Finally, Lords amendments Nos. 104, 106 and 132 are Scottish technical amendments that clarify the fact that certain provisions in the schedules do not affect local government elections in Scotland; otherwise there could be an impact on devolved matters. I hope that the House will accept all the Lords amendments.

Oliver Heald: The Opposition accept the amendments in this group. Lords amendment No. 19 deals with the important issue of whether pre-election expenses should be capped, which was raised by the Electoral Commission. Some hon. Members believe that only one or two parties in the House target certain constituencies, but I can assure them that all parties target particular seats at particular times. We should consider the proposal to prescribe a pre-election period with capped expenses. The Government were right to include it in the Phillips review, and we are interested in the outcome. It is difficult to try to impose a retrospective cap, as it is hard to persuade agents or candidates to take responsibility for a period when they were not involved, so we may need to return to the issue.

Alan Whitehead: The issue is not whether parties target seatsclearly, they dobut the large amounts of money that are raised nationally. Those funds are diverted from a national purpose and put in the hands of local parties to target local seats, giving them an uncompetitive advantage against parties that do not do so. It is difficult to resolve that central problem, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we must do so.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am wrong, but all political parties target seats when they campaign. More funding is probably available for candidates in a target seat than for other candidates. That is not a new developmentit is part of politics in every countrybut it is right to look into it.

Gavin Strang: The hon. Gentleman's approach is constructive. We all target seats, but is not the fundamental issue the question of whether capping is practical? That is not an easy solution, as the experience in the United States demonstrates, but it deserves careful consideration, as he said.

Oliver Heald: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman also adopts a constructive approach. I agree that we should look at the proposal, but we must consider whether a cap would be effective. Finally, we welcome the fact that the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has been given an official right to observe elections, as that was needed in the light of scandals in recent months and years.

Bruce George: The last time the House debated the Bill, I waited patiently to discuss my 20 amendments to clause 33. The House did not get anywhere near clause 33, and when I realised that I would not have an opportunity to speak, I confess that I walked out in anger and missed my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs saying, Don't worry. Although we have not discussed your 20 amendments, we will pay close attention to them.
	It was a matter of great delight, therefore, when I found that the Department, through the House of Lords, had almost completely rewritten clause 33, all six and a half pages of it. I could never understand how the Department dared draft the clause in its original form. I thought that I had made representations, and I assumed that my complaints and those of others would have been taken into account by a rational Government responding rationally.
	What passed for allowing in observers would have besmirched the name of Kazakhstan and Belarusnot just democratic countries, but countries that suffer from what might be called a significant democratic deficit. Such countries may not pay any attention to the election observers' reports, but they allow election observers in to wander round, to talk to people and to interfere politely in the way in which the count is conducted.

David Heath: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that at a time when the principle of independent parliamentary monitoring of elections is being undermined by some who would like to see the back of Members of this Parliament and others giving an objective view in their countries, for the United Kingdom not to allow for observers under international rules is insupportable.

Bruce George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, like me, has observed elections. I have headed short-term observation missions to 18 elections, most of which have been pretty awful, but we have never been denied access. We walk into a polling station and the officials there either welcome us or look like animals facing the headlights and cringe, but they do not say, You can't come in here.
	It was hard to believe that clause 33 stated that before international or domestic observers were allowed into a polling station, they had to get the approval of the returning officer. If anyone had tried to stop me going into a polling station in Ukraine, Georgia, the Balkans or Russia, it would have been item No. 1 in the report that I read out the following day. I would have asked, How on earth can we verify that elections meet international standards if we were not allowed into the polling station?
	That is what would have happened as a result of clause 33. Not only would international and domestic observers have been subject to the whim of the returning officer, but even the Electoral Commission, which plays an enormous role in elections, as I am sure the Department was aware, would have had to bow its head, go down on its knees and say, Please allow us in to observe this election.
	Well, the Department came up trumps. As a result, the six and a half pages were almost completely rewritten, to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. So now we are on a par with Kazakhstan something of which we should be immensely proud and even with Belarus, which conducts appalling elections but still allows in observers. They may have to stand 10 ft away and not be able to see the counting, but at least they are allowed in.
	The changes are welcome. They mean that observers can gain access to all stages of the election process. If there is to be a limit on numbers, let us be clear that it will not in any way inhibit the right of observers, international or domestic, to attend. People say that the hall might get too full.
	In Ukraine, the first and second elections two years ago were totally crooked. One of the methods used to limit the opposition in those areas in which they were strong was to hold the election in a constricted place, because people simply leave if there is a crowdalthough that is better than the situation in Iraq, where bombs were dropped on queues in order to deter people. If a returning officer says, I am sorry, but we cannot let in five or 10 observers, they have arranged for the election to take place in a polling station that is not fit for purpose.
	One of my best amendments, which I was quite pleased with, was rejected. It stated that the Electoral Commission should have regard to particular documentsI listed 10 of themin determining a code of conduct. However, the Electoral Commission has said that that point will be covered in subordinate legislation. Two weeks ago, I took part in a conference on the UN declaration of principles for international election observation, and I hopeindeed, I have some confidencethat the code of conduct for international observers will be in the subordinate legislation.
	It is amazing how many people were oblivious to the fact that domestic and international observers were prohibited. In a bizarre exchange, the then Foreign Secretary, who is now Leader of the House, roundly castigated Zimbabwe for running fraudulent elections and criticised it, quite correctly, for refusing to allow certain election observers to observe that fraudulent election. I felt compelled to point out to him the fact, of which he was oblivious, that while he rightly condemned Zimbabwe, he should appreciate that it generally allows in international observers, while we do not. Thankfully, that situation is history, so when I criticise the Russians or anybody else on how they conduct their elections, I will not have the point thrown into my face that I have no right to criticise because we do not allow in international observers.
	In conclusion, I am delighted that clause 33 has been almost completely rewritten, and I am sure that the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights will be happy. When the time comes, I am sure that one of the first countries to test our new procedures on election observers will be that great democracy adjacent to Russia, Belarus, which will be delighted to see whether we have genuinely allowed in observers, and will press whatever legislation we have to the full to prove that it is bad legislation. However, with the amendments, which I have now seen and almost totally approve of, we can tell Belarus, We know that you allow international observers in your undemocratic political system, but the United Kingdomone of the birthplaces of democracyafter 150 to 200 years of struggling to be more democratic, now allows in international observers too That will allow the whole process of transparency to come at long last to this country.
	I am grateful to the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs for listening to reason. That shows that the Government occasionally listen, and I am prepared to stand up and applaud them.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friends and I support all the amendments in this group. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for, at the very beginning of the debates about this Bill, picking up the point that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South has just addressed. It is very important that the OSCE recognises us as having the same standards as others, because it has always struck me that some of the countries that go around the world selling democracythe United States is an obvious exampleare not so good at it at home, and we need to be open to the same scrutiny as everywhere else.
	We particularly welcome the modernising amendments to do with mental patients, giving them, not before time, a civilised ability to take part in elections. We welcome the more flexible and adaptable arrangements for different formats to cater for people with disabilities, as promoted by the Disability Rights Commission, and for people with a different first language.
	We welcome the amusing and interesting idea that pilots will allow for photographs on ballot papers. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome saidI am not sure whether this is politically correctthat that may be a hidden way of trying to improve gender balance in our Parliaments and councils. Indeed it may. He also suggested that they should be subject to the Advertising Standards Authorityas in decent, honest and truthful Having just look at Dod'sI will not embarrass anybodyI noticed that some of the photographs were clearly not recent. If we are to have photographs, they should at least be from the past 12 months, not those taken 25 years before, which we have all seen on election leaflets.
	The most important subject was raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and others. I understand why the Minister said that, to her regret and that of others, the Bill will not include any mechanism for controlling national expenditure on campaigns that are clearly targeted at individual seats. The logic is that that will be dealt with by Sir Hayden Phillips' review of party funding. I am not too bothered about who is the worst offender, but it is clear that parties with the most money nationally can now deploy that money in increasing numbers of target seats. We are not talking about 10, 100 or 1,000, but potentially tens of thousands of pounds. This applies to campaigns that would begin, in effect, nowa year after the previous general electionand take us right up to the calling of a general election. The only way in which parties manage to get out of the current rules is by being non-specific and seen to be nationally funded. Instead of saying, Support Bridget Prentice as candidate for Lewisham, East, or, Support Oliver Heald as candidate for North-East Hertfordshire, they use the party leader's name. My party and I are very clear that Sir Hayden Phillips must deal with that. We expect recommendations and will put in our evidence accordingly, and we expect legislation to come out of the review in good time for the next general election. Otherwise, there will be no level playing field. We see this as unfinished business. I hope that there will be consensus, even if only on this one issue, so that we can move forward. We must return to debate this as soon as Sir Hayden Phillips' review is over. We will certainly allocate time for that, and I hope that other parties will too.

Bridget Prentice: On photographs, we will consult political parties to ensure that there is support for that. I put on the record my endorsement of the splendid work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) in bringing the issue of observers to the Floor of the House.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 8 to the Bill: Mr. Michael Foster, Mr. Oliver Heald, Simon Hughes, Martin Linton and Bridget Prentice; Bridget Prentice to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee. [Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 To withdraw immediately.
	 Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 8 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Magistrates Courts

That the draft Collection of Fines (Final Scheme) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 20th April, be approved. [Liz Blackman.]
	 Question agreed to.

SMALL SHOPS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Liz Blackman.]

Henry Bellingham: I am pleased that the Minister for Trade will reply to the debate and feel flattered that a Minister of such seniority is staying up late to do that.
	The debate is important because it is about small shops, which are a vital part of not only the small firms sector but the rural communities that they serve, as well as suburban and urban communities. They are often the focal point of the community, especially when a shop is combined with a post office and probably a newsagent. Villages and urban wards that do not have village shops or a shop at the centre of the community lack something important, which goes to the core of community spirit.
	There has been a substantial decline in the number of community storesindeed, 2,000 closed last year. As I go round my constituency, I see shops that have closed and villages with no shop. Not long ago, villages such as Pentney near King's Lynn had a shop, a pub and, indeed, a garage. Now there is nothing left in that village and the heart has been taken out of it. I am afraid that such occurrences are all too regular. Let us consider the number of closures of unaffiliated independent stores: there were 35,500 stores in 2000 whereas there were 25,893 a month agoa reduction of 10,000 in a relatively short time.
	Many hon. Members from all parties, but especially Conservative Members, have shown a great deal of concern about post office closures. In my constituency, 10 closures have happened in the past five years. Four closures of urban post offices happened under the urban post office renewal scheme. Those four closures in King's Lynn had a significant and debilitating effect on the local community.
	I want to consider the different sorts of shops and some of the threats to them, and perhaps examine the more promising points for the future. Most proprietors of small shops, newsagents and small pubs are innovative and proud people. The role of the small shops sector within the small firms sector is also important. Indeed, 90 per cent. of all businesses are classified as small businesses, and 75 per cent. of the entire work force are employed in small to medium-sized enterprises. That is important, particularly at a time when dark clouds are beginning to gather over our economy. I will not go into too much detail about that, but we know that the trade figures for the last quarter were shockingthe worst on record. We also know that the United Kingdom has fallen in the World Economic Forum's rankings from fourth to 13th, that business investment is at an all-time low and that productivity is falling.
	I do not believe that the extra jobs being created in the public sector will be sustainable in the short to medium term, so we shall have to look to the small firms sector to provide the employment that is vital to this country's economy. That is why it is important that Her Majesty's Government do everything in their power to make life easier for small firms, and for small shops in particular, but I submit that they are not doing that.
	Let us take small post offices as an example. They have been hammered by the Government's decision to introduce automated credit transfer. There was a time when our constituents could go into post offices in villages, suburbs and towns to draw out their benefits and perhaps spend that money in the shop on sweets, groceries or newspapers. Now, they are forced to have that money paid into their bank account. We warned the Government that that would lead to post office closures but they took no notice whatever. They set up the Post Office card account, but that is to be abandoned in five years' time. What a shambles.
	We are not asking the Government to give post offices large grants. We are simply asking them to use their power as a provider of services to locate as many of those services as possible in post offices. That is where the Government can help the small firms sector and small shops. We know how much pressure those shops are under from the competition from superstores.
	That brings me to the Competition Commission's inquiry into the United Kingdom grocery market. There are many concerns involved here, including the vast market power of the four largest retailers, their ability to sell at way below cost, their tendency towards predatory pricing, their buying power and their inordinate power over suppliers. All of us who represent farming constituencies or constituencies near to farming areas know the power of those retailers over suppliers and growers and over the rural economy. It is an invidious power, and it is very damaging.
	That power is combined with the power of those retailers to get planning permission and to build up large land banks. We all know that when they are turned down for a planning application, they apply again and again until they get planning permission. They have the power and the finance in their shareholders' funds to drive the system into despair and to get what they want.

Peter Bone: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate on this important topic. Does he share my concern that the supermarkets' latest tactic is to buy the small shops and turn them into local supermarkets? That is destroying another part of our heritage.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is right. That is happening in all our constituencies. When it first started to happen, we thought that perhaps the Tesco community stores, or some of the other community stores that were taken over by the large retailers, might be a good idea. But now we have seen a number of traits such as predatory pricing and below-cost selling, and that has a damaging effect on the surrounding shops.
	It is important that the Government widen the scope of the Competition Commission's inquiry. As I understand it, its scope is to be limited mainly to planning and land banks. That is far too narrow, and I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

Stewart Jackson: Does my hon. Friend share my concern, with regard to the ongoing investigation, that the Office of Fair Trading differentiates between a local community store such as a Tesco Metro and a hypermarket, which might be only a mile away? It considers them to be operating in different markets even though they have the same economies of scale and supply chain issues. What does my hon. Friend think of that?

Henry Bellingham: That is an important point. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for supporting me in the debate, because it shows how strongly they feel about the issue. The Minister will have to take away those points and I hope that he will be able to answer them in about 10 minutes' time.
	I should like to make a quick point about the Sunday trading legislation. The Sunday Trading Act 1994 may well have been good for the consumer, but it certainly was not good news for small shops. It tipped the balance of retailing power decisively in favour of the multiple stores and the out-of-town sheds. HMG are in the process of reviewing the legislation with a view to extending the trading hours of large retailers. I can tell the Minister that there is overwhelming opposition in my constituency to any change to the legislation. I have received hundreds of cards and letters from people who work in shops and on stalls and a very large number of representations from organisation such as the Association of Convenience Stores, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Rural Shops Alliance and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. The overwhelming feeling among those in the small firms sector is that there should be no extension of the legislation. Furthermore, it would be daft even to consider legislation while the Competition Commission inquiry is ongoing. I hope very much that the Minister will consider that.
	There are other concerns as well. I should like to mention the impact of smuggling and counterfeiting. One of the less savoury phenomena of recent years is the rise of the rogue traders who sell counterfeit goods and smuggle tobacco and alcohol. Indeed, I saw the other day that one fifth of all cigarettes sold in the UK are illegal. That is having a damaging effect on the small shops sector and I hope that the Government will take it on board and address it.
	Regulation gives rise to huge concernwe could debate it for many hoursand I want to make two very quick points about it. I am concerned about the rise in regulation. The British Chambers of Commerce's Burdens Barometer, which is an ongoing measure of the accumulated combined total cost of regulations on business, has now hit 50 billion since the Government came to power. That excludes the minimum wage, which Conservative Members support.  [ Interruption. ] We do indeed support it; we are on record as saying so.  [ Interruption. ] I was not a Member then, and I do not think that any of my colleagues who are present were Members then. We support the minimum wage, and when I was shadow Minister for small business and employment, I made it very clear that we supported it. There is no question of a flip-flop; we have a firm policy.
	A change in the Whitehall culture is needed, because the Government have presided over larger and more intrusive government. The bigger the Government get, the more task forces they spawn, the more agencies grow up around them and the more they interfere. Why cannot they send a signal straight away? Rather than having a Better Regulation Task Force, let us have a deregulation taskforce. Let us include sunset clauses in much of the legislation that is introduced. Let us put an end to gold-plating as soon as possible. If we do that, we might just change the culture of Whitehall in relation to the small firms sector and ensure that the Government start to think about small business, rather than just emphasising their credentials in the big business and larger business community, where, quite frankly, there is a totally different agenda.
	I want to say a quick word about garages. Nothing is more depressing than driving through a village and seeing a once-thriving local garage standing empty, probably soon to be replaced by upmarket housing. There are numerous examples in my constituency. Villages such as Grimston, Brancaster and Magdalen had thriving village garages, with shops attached. In some cases, a post office was attached as well. Many other garages are hanging on by their fingertips. I went past a garage the other day where fuel was being sold at 1.06 a litre. Most of those garages have stopped selling fuel, but HMG could consider the whole planning regime relating to small garages and their change of use. Could not HMG also examine closely the fuel supply arrangements for smaller independent outlets that do not have the buying power of the multiples?
	The outlook for small shops is bleak. The Government have ignored that crucial sector of the economy. One brighter light on the horizon, however, is the farm shop movement. In my constituency, several small farm shops have opened recently. There is one at Knight's Hill in South Wootton run by the Melton family. There is another in Bircham run by the local publican, William Poole, in conjunction with the Carter family. The Sandringham estate at West Newton is also about to open up a farm shop, which will incorporate a butcher's, village shop and post office and which will sell meat from its red poll herd.
	Public demand is changing fast. The public are getting more and more fed up with supermarkets refusing to label food properly, especially beef, pork and bacon. They are getting fed up with the crazy lack of concern for the environment shown by large retailers who source products from far-flung destinations when there are home-grown alternatives. They are also fed up with retailers having a cavalier attitude and a total disdain for the organic movement. That is why many members of the public up and down the country are beginning to speak with their pockets and demand higher standards. They are not getting those standards in supermarkets and large retailers, but they are getting them in farm shops. That is why the increase in farm shops, particularly in rural areas, is very healthy.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate my hon. Friend on a brilliant analysis of the threat to small shops in our country. Did not Napoleon Bonaparte say that England was a nation of shopkeepers? Is not it a shame that, 200 years on from when he uttered those words, we should have the need for such a debate in the House of Commons?

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend's remark is perceptive. Small shops and their proprietors are often the backbone of our communities. They are the people who provide the social focus in villages, towns and suburbs and who care about the community. The service that they offer can also be social, as they provide a place where people meet, converse and feel that they are part of a thriving community. The Government do not properly understand that.
	With the exception of what is happening in the farm shop movement, the outlook for small shops is bleak. It will be even bleaker if the Government do not start to listen to what is being said by organisations such as the Association of Convenience Stores, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and the Rural Shops Alliance. The Minister is new to this job. He is back in a senior position in the Department of Trade and Industry, and I welcome that. I am sorry that he is no longer in the Cabinet, but perhaps he will have a chance to return to it before too long. Perhaps if he really grips this issue, runs with it and becomes a champion of small shops, he will build up his credentials as someone who cares about the small firms sector. If he does that, and the Government start to listen, there may be more grounds for optimism than I have outlined tonight.

Ian McCartney: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing this debate. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the issues that he raises. As a Conservative Member, however, he has some selective amnesia. He said that he supports small businesses, but we should remember that one small business went bust every minute of every day under the Conservative party in government. He said that he supports the national minimum wage, but the Conservatives said that the national minimum wage would cost 2 million jobs. We created the minimum wage and we also created 2 million jobs. As for support for rural post offices, his party closed 3,500 rural post offices in its last period in government. Let us have the debate and discussion, and I hope that I will be able to demonstrate that the Government not only value small shops but small businesses generally in the community and in society.
	Retail is of great importance to the prosperity of the United Kingdom economy. Eleven per cent. of our enterprises are retailers: more than 102,500 stores. UK retail sales were worth approximately 249 billion in 2005. Retail is also important in providing employment opportunities. Just under 3 million people in the UK are employed in retailone in 10 workers. Small retailers have a vital role to play in the success of the retail sector and the provision of jobs. Of course large businesses are importantvery importantbut small retailers contribute to a vibrant and diverse sector.
	The convenience store sector is thriving, notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman said. The Institute of Grocery Distribution, a key research organisation for the sector, estimates that sales in convenience storesstores measuring less than 280 sq m, about the size of a tennis courtrepresent about 20 per cent. of total grocery retail sales in the United Kingdom. The IGD forecasts that convenience stores' share of the total grocery retail market is likely to continue to rise, increasing from 20 per cent. to nearly 24 per cent. by 2010.
	Enterprise is vital to a growing and dynamic economy. To encourage and assist enterprise, we need to create the right support mechanisms. The Government provide a range of support measures for small businesses, including small shopssomething that the hon. Gentleman conveniently forgot to mention. Small businesses can obtain grants, funds, loan guarantee schemes and advice through our network of business links. In addition, we ensure that the valued experience and knowledge contained in bodies representing smaller retailers is captured through involvement with our key retail forums. I hope that I am right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman indicated that the Conservative party would support those forums and their continuation.
	The retail policy forum and the retail innovation group give small businesses a voice at the heart of Government, and they use it in an effective way. Together the Association of Convenience Stores, the British Hardware Federation, the Horticultural Trades Association and the British Retail Consortium are working with the Department of Trade and Industry. About 70,000 small shops are involved. Recent informed exchanges on the possibility of extending Sunday shopping hours demonstrate the importance of the relationship.
	Members of the Virtual Retail policy forum are partners with the DTI's retail unit. They include the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, the Rural Shops Alliance, the Independent Retailers Confederation and the Giftware Association. At every level, small business in each sector is involved in a real business partnership with Government. The Small Business Service, an agency of the DTI, is a specialist centre of expertise in Government to champion the sector and help small businesses to flourish. It is a shame that the Conservative party is still committed to abolishing that service. The purpose of the SBS is to help produce an enterprise society, to ensure that Britain remains the best place in the world in which to start and grow a business, and to promote enterprise and a climate in which small businesses can flourish.
	The Federation of Small Businesses supports the continuation of the SBS. A recent National Audit Office report quoted it as saying that it
	wholeheartedly would like to see SBS succeed because it is the only real answer for small businesses.
	That was said on 18 May this year. The Conservatives, however, still cling to their policy of opposing the SBS.
	Small shops have been quick to take advantage of the support that the SBS has to offer. The small firms loan guarantee scheme is a good example. It helps small companies with good business ideas to obtain loans when their lack of the collateral normally required as security by the lender would otherwise make borrowing impossible. Since the SFLG began, about 100,000 loans valued at more than 4 billion have been guaranteed, and since 2003-04 nearly 20,000 loan guarantees have been agreed under the scheme. I suspect that the Conservative party would not continue to support such measures. Current monthly use amounts to about 650 loans, with a total value of around 40 million a month. The average loan tends to be about 70,000.
	Small retailers have benefited. The scheme was strengthened considerably in April 2003, when changes were made that brought retail and other local services such as garages and hairdressers into the scope of the scheme. The number of small firms loan guarantees offered to the retail sector since April 2003 stands at 2,925. Between 2002 and 2005, 218 loans, valued at 13.6 million, have been granted in the hon. Gentleman's county of Norfolk. On his own doorstep, we are providing direct resources and funds to support the creation of small businesses or enable them to be sustained. Perhaps he would give some recognition to that.
	Another key area of business support is the Business Link service, which is a crucial part of the Government's campaign to promote enterprise. Business Link will fast-track customers to the expert help that they needwhatever the issue. Its service is delivered through advisers in customers' local areas. Over the past four years, the number of customers using Business Link has doubled. The customer satisfaction levelI emphasise that we are talking about small businessesis at a record 91 per cent., and 96 per cent. of customers are willing to recommend the service to others. Again, the Conservative party has shown no desire to continue with this direct support for small businesses.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the Office of Fair Trading grocery market reference. He will be aware that I cannot directly intervene in such matters, but it will be useful and appropriate if I respond where I can. The UK competition framework has established the OFT and the Competition Commission as independent statutory bodies. The Government wished to remove politics from competition decisions, allowing expert independent competition bodies to take decisions on mergers and markets. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will recognise the benefits of that revised structure.
	On 9 May, the OFT announced its decision to refer the grocery market to the Competition Commission for a market investigation. The evidence compiled by the OFT suggests that the planning regime acts as a costly barrier to entry, making it difficult for new stores to open and to compete with those already in the market. In addition, big supermarkets have significant land holdings, which could aggravate barriers to entry or otherwise harm consumers. In some instances, supermarkets have attached restrictive covenants when selling sites. The OFT also found that there is evidence to suggest that the big supermarkets' buying power has increased, and that some aspects of their pricing behaviour, such as below-cost selling and price flexing, could distort competition.
	Although the OFT has been specific about the issues that it feels could present a problem within the market, the Competition Commission investigation is not limited to considering only those issues identified in the reference document. They could include competition in the food supply chainfarmers are an exampleand/or non-groceries sold by supermarkets. It is for the Competition Commission to make that decision.
	The supermarket code of practice, which regulates the relationship between the big four chains and their direct suppliers, is not affected at this time, and remains in place until the companies bound by itTesco, Sainsbury's, Asda and Morrisonsare released from the undertakings that form the basis of the code. It will be for the Competition Commission to make recommendations in its report on whether it believes that the code should be maintained, amended or repealed.
	I turn now to rural post offices. The Government recognise the important role played by post offices in the delivery of services to rural communities, and have taken steps to maintain their presence. In November 2000, we directed Post Office Limited to prevent avoidable closures of rural branches, and since 2003 we have supported the rural network to the tune of 150 million per year. That subsidy helps the company to maintain the network of rural branches. That is in stark contrast to what we inherited from the Conservatives in 1997. Between 1979 and 1997, the previous Government presided over 3,500 closures, and produced no policy on how to ensure that the network could continue to remain relevant into the 21st century. In addition, about two thirds900of directly managed Crown branches were converted to franchise status with no clear strategy.
	It did not take long for this Government to recognise that, following decades of decline and under-investment, drastic action was necessary to get the business on track and to secure its long-term future. We set about producing policies that would help achieve thatsomething that the previous Government had totally failed to do. We set about reversing the decline. Some 500 million was injected to help fund the horizon IT infrastructure, and since 2003 the Government have not only committed 150 million a year until 2008 to support the rural network; on top of that, we have put 210 million towards the urban reinvention programme, including some 30 million of investment grants to improve and modernise remaining branches. Not a single penny went to the post office network under the Conservative Government. Indeed, year in, year out, of the profits made by the Post Office, almost 95p in every pound was taken by the Conservative Chancellor to be reinvested in other parts of the public sector. One example was paying large-scale unemployment benefit, instead of reinventing the Post Office to provide a modern service. I will not yield to any Conservative on investment, and future investment, in post office services. This Government have invested the amazing sum of more than 1.4 billion in the past few years in modernisation and retooling of both the directly managed Crown network service and the rural and urban network services.
	The Government's policy of preventing avoidable closures in rural areas has benefited the constituency of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk over the past 12 monthssomething that he either does not know about or has just ignored. Both the Brancaster and Syderstone branches reopened in late 2005, and the Brancaster Staithe branch is due to reopen later this month on 22 June. There are two temporary closures at Walpole St. Andrews and West Newton, and Post Office Ltds rural transfer advisers are working hard to fill the vacancies. I will advise the hon. Gentleman further on the reopening of those two post offices.
	We have had a debate about Sunday shopping, and the hon. Gentleman will have to wait a little longer, as I am still reviewing the issue in terms of the consultation that has taken place.
	If anyone is thinking about opening a small business, they should do it now. There is no better time under a Labour Government achieving the world's most stable economy. Vote Labour and get yourself a small business!
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.